


^v"^£&fCi 



«S*M 



r &l$*)£ 



M&lmrM^ 



1111 



Wmmm&^kmim 



ft-'K 1 ?? 



nlfil 



; ,-s; 



;k' 



lliiill 



p lllii 



■ii-'^.-v^: .•• 



♦ LIBRARY OF -CONGRESS 

# — ; 

y 

[SMITHStolAH DEPOSIT/} 



3. 






,=££ 



r*? 



l 



UNITE!) STATES OF AMERICA 



IH 






1m 



iliWW 



WIMki 



n 



liiiiiiii 



ftW 



■8?"-: 



A A 



fillip 



*m-m- 



A. f\ x 



irapai#liPKi 















rl 



Ma 



^BSaspflsa 



i 



sm 



mm 





: - : J. 


Jill 


Iffl^H 




mid 



MKIi 



WmppPm 

'mm ! v . a. 



mpN* a 



7 > '/-. 



AN APPEAL 



FROM THK 



ABSURDITIES AND CONTRADICTIONS 



PERVADE, AND DEFORM 



OLD THEORY OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR, 



TO THE 



TRUE CONSTRUCTIVE PRINCIPLES 



ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 



fy 




BY JAMES BROWN : 



THE AUTHOR OF "THE EXEGESIS OF THE TRUE WAY OF ANALIZING WORDS, AND CONSTRUCTIONS 

OF DIFFICULT RESOLUTIONS," "THE FIRST AND THE SECOND ROUND IN THE LADDER 

OF EDUCATION,"* AND AN ENGLISH GRAMMAR. DEVELOPING THE NEW SCIENCE 

MADE UP OF THE CONSTRUCTIVE PRINCIPLES WHICH FORM A SURE 

GUIDE IN USING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE; BUT WHICH 

ARE NOT FOUND IN THE OLD THEORY 

OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR. 



If you would avoid your own errors, examine those of others." 



■ Read, not to take for granted, but to weigh— to consider." — Bacon. 



PHILADELPHIA: 

PUBLISHED BY JOHN T. LANGE, 

SOUTH-EAST CORNER OF SIXTH AND ARCH STREET. 



/ 



1850. 



T £) 



ol 



37 



Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1850, by 

JAMES BROWN, 

In the office of the Clerk of the District Court for the Eastern District 

of Pennsylvania. 



CONTENTS, 



Chapter I. 
The old definition of a noun, ... 3 

Chapter II. 
Case in English, . . . • • 9 

Chapter III. 
Nominative Case, 11 

Chapter IV. 
Possessive Case, 19 

Chapter V. 
Objective Case, .22 

Chapter VI. 
Pronoun, 33 

Chapter VII. 
Number, Person, and Gender, . . .36 

Chapter VIII. 
Nouns, Common, and Proper, . . .43 

Chapter IX. 
Adjective, ' • . 43 

Chapter X. 
Verb, 51 

Chapter XI. 
Mood, 60 

Chapter XII. 
Tense, . . . . . . .65 

Chapter XIII. 
Number, and Person of Verbs, . . .72 

Chapter XIV. 
Principal, and Auxiliary Verb . . .77 

Chapter XV. 
Participle, 79 

Chapter XVI. 
Adverb, • 83 

Chapter XVII. 
Preposition, . . . ... . 84 



Chapter XVIII. 
Conjunction, . . . . . . .90 

Chapter XIX. 
Article 98 

Chapter XX. 
Interjection, 105 

Chapter XXI. 
Syntax, . . . . . . ' . 107 

Chapter XXII. 
A Collective Noun is always singular, unless 
it has the plural form, .... 124 

Chapter XXIII. 
Truth, and Knowledge, . . ; .126 

Chapter XXIV. 
The Word, Grammar, . . „ .128 

Chapter XXV. 
Definition of Grammar, | . 130 

Chapter XXVI. 
Etymology, ...... 132 

Chapter XXVII. 
A Sentence, 136 

Chapter XXVIII. 
The Old Theory of English Grammar not a 
system, 137 

Chapter XXIX. 
Parts of Speech, . . . . . .144 

Chapter XXX. 
Parsing, 146 

Chapter XXXI. 
Murray's English Grammar, not compiled to 
conform to the genius of other languages, 148 

Chapter XXXII. 
A Synoptical View of the defects of the old 
theory, 149 

Chapter XXXIII. 
Style, . 154 



CONTENTS. 



Chapter XXXIV. 

An attempt to demonstrate the utter inutility 
of the old theory of English Grammar, by 
showing that its makers, menders, and its 
other advocates can not use the English 
language with propriety. 

Joseph R. Chandler, 



162 



Chapter XXXV. 
John S. Hart, Principal of the Philadelphia 
High School, 164 



Chapter XXXVI. 
John Frost, L. L. D., . , 

A. D. Bache, L. L. D f> . 



171 
182 



Chapter XXXVII 
Goold Brown, 
John Comly, 
Samuel Kirkham 
W. S. Cardell, 
Greenleaf, 

A. Picket, . 
Roswell C. Smith 
Joab Brace, 
Peter Bullions, 
M. Roche's lecture on Grammar, 

B. F. Ells, . 

Remarks on Education 
A reply to Rev. Robert . 



Breckinridge, D. D, 



The questions to be decided, 



188 
190 
190 
192 
193 
195 
197 
197 
19.4 
199 
205 

201 

202 

209 



PREFACE. 



The English bids fair to be a living Language through time itself. Hence no 
change, in the means by which its principles are developed, calculated to redound 
to the honour of the present, and to the good of future generations, should be dis- 
couraged by the plea of a probable want of longevity in the language itself. 

It is composed of materials derived from various sources ; and although these 
sources are rich even to philogical luxuries, the English Language is strong even 
to that persuasion to which reason itself often becomes a sacrifice. Hence con- 
sidering the tender age of the English Language, perhaps it may be said to 
surpass every other ? 

As the English Language is still in its youth, it is yet in a progressive state. 
Jn general, men have three distinct objects in their instruments, means, and insti- 
tutions. And as these are not simultaneous, but successive in their existence, 
every human means, system, and institution must remain a long time in a state of 
progression. 

A man's first object in building, is a house which will provide for his 
necessities. — His second, is a house which will provide for his convenience — and 
his third object is one that will not only provide for his comfort, but which will 
comport with his wealth and station. 

Now, it is with a nation as it is with an individual ; and it is with languages, 
systems, and institutions as it is with a house. Every thing that relates to man, 
is matter of progression. Listen to Cowper, singing the simple stool into the 
splendid sofa upon the notes of progressive improvement. 

And, if you turn to the stove, you will find that construction designed to answer 
the demands of necessity, thrown aside by the hands of genius, which has pro- 
vided for necessity, convenience, and taste in the same thing. 

And, as you turn from the stove to language, you will find the same hand 
abridging in some parts, augmenting in others, and adjusting all for convenience, 
strength, perspicuity, despatch, and euphony. 

Mark, the orthography of the italic words. 
" Haue more then thou showest, 
Speak less then thou knowest, 
Lend less then thou owest, 
Ride more then thou goest, 
Learne more then thou trowest." — Lear, p. 288. 

Haue is now have — and then is now than — and learne is now learn. 
" Where shall we sojourne till our coronation 1 
" Where it thinks best unto your royall selfe. 

Richard 3d page 186. 

Sojourne, is now sojourn — royall is now royal — selfe, is now self. 

" Men's eyes be obedient unto the creatour that they may see on think, and 
yet not another. — Bishop Hooper. 

Creatour, is now Creator — on is now one — and think is now thing. 

" The woman's synne was lesse greuous than Adam's synne, and lesse hurtful 
to mankynde" 

Dieus and Pauper, 6th conn. chap. 10. 

(iiio 



IV PREFACE. 

" Nor make warre upon me nyght, nor day." 

Squires Tales, fol. 5, pag. 2, col. 1. 

Warre. is now ivar — nyght is now night. 

" Our hope in him is dead : let us returne, 
And use what other meanes is left unto us," #c. 
Timon of Athens, page 67. 

Returne, is now return — and meanes is now means. 

It is here seen that language is an instrument which is continually changed the 
better to answer the purpose of those for whose use it is intended. And, pray, 
why, should it not be so 1 Has not the traveller a right to trim, and smooth his 
walking stick? shall he not be permitted to cut it down to a size suitable to his 
convenience and strength ; and eventually, to insert a sword fit for his defence, 
and to give the whole a polish congenial to his wish, and taste? 

Those persons who have concerned themselves with the English language no 
farther than to learn, and use it as it now is, may think that it has already attained 
to its acme of Excellence. From such, however, the author of this Appeal very 
widely differs. Nor is he alone in this opinion. — For, in an Oration pronounced 
at Cambridge, August 26, 1824, before the Phi Beta Kappa Society, by Edward 
Everett, it is said by this finished scholar that — 

" There is little doubt that the instrument of communication, loill receive 
great improvements ; that the written, and spoken language will acquire new 
force, and power ; possibly that forms of address, wholly new, will be struck 
out to meet the universal demand for new energy." 

The author of the new system of English grammar proposes no change in the 
language itself. He proposes a revolution in the means by which its laws are 
acquired. 

But it may be said by many, that the old system has so long enjoyed the appro- 
bation of the learned, that it must be a complete, and accurate expression of the 
constructive genius of the English language. To those who deduce the perfection 
of the old theory, from the duration of its existence, it may be replied that the 
arts, and sciences have ever been slow in their progress, and been brought to their 
present condition by the accumulated efforts of different countries, and successive 
generations. Even the common mechanic arts, upon which the concurrent expe- 
rience of all men in every nation, has been constantly acting, have attained to 
comparative excellence only. Great, therefore, as have been the successive 
efforts of the British grammarians ; and much as they deserve approbation for 
what they have accomplished, the history of the arts, and sciences, in general, 
and the difficulties of philological investigation, in particular, forbid the belief 
that the old theory of English Grammar, has yet attained to those powers of develop- 
ment, necessary to a full, true, and clear expression of the constructive princi- 
ples of our language. 

Nor, while the author of this Appeal, has uniformly rendered that respect to 
the British English grammarians, to which they are so justly entitled from all, 
has he been surprised to find their whole theory groaning under the disease of 
error. This disease has been too general to excite any sudden emotion from 
novelty — it has always been the prevailing epidemic among new systems, plans, 
and institutions — and, while a few have escaped its attack, the majority has fallen 
victims to its rage, and been cut down, as by a quick, or slow consumption. In 
confirmation of this, see theory after theory falling like men in battle — mark the 
means employed to save them from the state of protracted sleep. — The dignity of 
their origin is pleaded — the few services they have rendered, are urged — the incon- 
venience of change, is exaggerated — error is attempted to be beautified-innovation 
is belied, and presented in all the terrors of disorder, dilaceration, and ruin — and 
the innovator himself is held up as a pest to society — an enemy to truth, as 
some refractory spirit seeking distinction in the ruin of those noble fabrics which 



PREFACE. V 

have been finished by genius, adorned with learning, tried by time, and admired 
by the world. But history shows that all these life-saving resorts are vain. — The 
existence of error cannot be protracted beyond the discovery of truth ! When- 
ever error can be clearly exposed, and truth fairly made out, the sea of life, 
which rocks under the jarring interests, and views of men, will rise in anger, and 
will swallow up that compass, be it constructed by whom it may, which has been 
unfaithful to the mariner, in his voyage for science, art, or fame. 

The present popular system of English Grammar, is a compilation by Mr. L. 
Murray. 

Mr. Murray was an American — he w r as born, and educated in the United 
States. His work, however, is a collection of the written opinions, and views of 
the English literati. The author compiled his Grammar after he became a mem- 
ber of the English community — he designed it as a system of Definitions, Rules 
and Remarks, for the presentation of the structure of the English language— the 
work therefore, is in every sense of the word, an English production. But is it 
the worse for its national character ? No ! Nor is it considered so in the 
present attack upon it. England is our mother — and, although, while in her 
family, and under her protection, we received nothing from her hands but 
persecution in all its forms ; yet while we would receive her literary gifts with 
the affection of children ; we would employ them with the minds of men. 

The ties between England, and America, are amity, and affection. These 
national ligatures can never be strengthened by oblations upon the altar of science, 
for the sins of the parent upon the heads of the children. Freedom is the source 
whence these chords have sprung ; and Independence is the pow T er which must 
continue their tension. Political independence hath given us wings — and literary 
freedom will enable us to soar to fame. Does England say that this Appeal is an 
attack upon her ? the appellant denies the charge ; it is an attack upon her 
erroneous opinions with an application to her best judgment to renounce them. 
Nor is the attack intended for her any farther than she is disposed to render it 
subservient to her interest. If she thinks proper to approve, well. But, if she 
undertakes to repel this attack, she is arrayed against truth which is no sooner 
known, than it finds advocates in every land, and clime ! Truth has never 
suffered for a want of advocates. It sometimes lies long concealed under 
methodical, and pampered error. But as this loathsome garb is torn off, and 
truth exhibited in its native beauty, and form, it is led forth by its numerous 
friends, and made to strengthen the mind, to adorn art and science, and to 
beautify nature herself. 

Nor does truth ever become so degraded by the comparative value of the 
system, art, or science in which it may be found, that it falls below the favourable 
notice, and ready patronage of the wisest, and best man. True, individuals may 
be found, who say, " O, the old theory answers all practical purposes — and farther 
than this, we are indifferent. 

But this is not the general sentiment of the human race. The erroneous theory 
of astronomy was sufficient to answer all " practical purposes " — yet because 
this theory shut out the truth, it was exploded, and the true one adopted. It 
was a love of truth, which induced men to reject the old astronomical theory, and 
to receive the new, and true one. For surely, those master spirits who arrayed 
themselves against error, neither expected, by the introduction of the true system, 
to enrich the soil of the earth, nor to bring more brilliant, and lasting light from 
the heavens. No — it was the lustre of truth, which attracted their attention — 
it was the brilliancy of this diamond, which enlisted these soldiers of science in 
the war of innovation. And it was not until the termination of this war, that 
the splendour of creation was known, or the greatness of its Maker seen. 

Man is so constituted that truth renders him happy, while error makes him 
miserable. Truth has an effect upon the mind as much as fire upon the flesh, or 



VI PREFACE. 

food upon the palate. The criminal is made happy, or miserable, by truth. If 
truth fixes the crime, the culprit is condemned, though acquitted-, but, \{ false- 
hood fixes it, he is acquitted although condemned. 

If a theory is founded in truth, no higher recommendation is necessary — in- 
deed it would be an insult upon the nature, and dignity of man, to attempt any 
stronger, or higher encomium. 

If a man rejects truth upon the ground that error may answer all practical 
purposes, he forms an exception — he falls below the dignity of his species. The 
man who says that error will answer as well as truth, might also say that vice 
will answer as well as virtue, that a falsehood is as commendable as the truth ; in 
short, that sin is as worthy as holiness itself! 

Truth even in the abstract, has claims upon man for his approbation — and man 
from his very nature, rejoices in paying the demand. 

The author has proceeded thus far upon the ground that an erroneous theory 
will answer all practical purposes. But he now denies the correctness of the 
position ; and he pities them who have the weakness to take it. Was this 
position reversed they who take it, would appear more gracious — for systems 
may answer in theory, which are by no means competent in practice. The 
British system of English Grammar, may answer all the purposes of theory — but, 
it cannot answer even half of the purposes of practice. The purposes of a gram- 
mar in practice, are the just solution, and proper use of the language whose con- 
struction it professes to teach. These purposes are not answered by the old 
English Grammar, which in the course of this work, will be clearly demonstrated. 
And it is upon this firm ground that the present petition is made to the American 
people to abandon that theory for one, conceived in truth, born of the English lan- 
guage, dressed in simplicity, skilful, and strong even to all the pretended eccen- 
tricities, anomalies, and idioms with which our language is said to abound. 

But the petitioner does not even hope to escape opposition — he craves investiga- 
tion — he trembles not under the dread of defeat — truth against error, is omnipo- 
tent. 

The author of the new system of English grammar, is not insensible that even 
the American people will listen to his petition with a jealous diffidence. They 
will revert with logical caution to the numerous attempts to improve the volumi- 
nous compilations of the worthy Mr. Murray, upon this science. The stubborn 
animosity of those who have been disappointed in a Goold Brown ; the virulence 
of them that have not realized their high expectations in a Bullions ; and the exe- 
crations of the many, who say Murray is the very acme of grammatical excel- 
lence, will entrench themselves against the prosperity of this undertaking. Nor 
will the opposing force stop here ; some of the many who have devoted so much 
time to the study of this science, by the old plan, will, from mere pride of opinion, 
exert their influence to retard the march of this improvement. The last class of 
anti-improvers, may be known by the character of the argument which they adopt. 
They tell the community that it is not possible that so learned a man as Mr. Mur- 
ray, should so far overlook the genius of our language, that he can form an erro- 
neous system for the development of its principles. They even convert the 
worth, and elevated standing of the man into a kind of arch which they throw over 
his works to defend them from the pressure of criticism. This arch I greatly ad- 
mire ; and I would even plead the dignity of its materials as a superinducement for 
my attack upon its tenants. When a country so idolizes its great men that it trem- 
bles at an appeal from their erroneous decisions, the avenues to improvement are 
closed, — national reputation sickens, — the expiring rattle is heard in the larynx 
of genius, — and the cold sweat of death covers the public body. 

A Republic must advance, or it must retrogade. This is emphatically true 
with the American community. The rapid increase of its population, brings 
along with it new views, new interests, new jealousies, and new ambition. 



PREFACE. Vil 

Politics have become the highway to fame, — hence the broad road to destruction. 
The crowds that enter, seem resolved on distinction, and power. Every act which 
seems important to self-aggrandizement, must be pushed into being; and every 
chief magistrate whose reign appears hurtful to the opposite party, must be hurled 
from his seat by the constitution of the Union. 

All the leading politicians have fixed their eyes upon some exalted posts — and 
to attain to these, they rely upon the various views which may be taken of this 
glorious instrument — an instrument which would be sufficient to guide a Wash- 
ington ; but which is altogether incompetent to control one bent upon power, and 
dominion. 

This Republic is not to be saved from the attacks of ambition, by a Junius 
brandishing the crimson steel. The guardian power of America, must be sought 
for in her constitution. This is the ark in which her liberties, — her rights, — her 
very vitals are deposited. 

The defects in the construction of this ark, have already served the purposes 
of political partizans who will always be dangerous to American liberty in pro- 
portion to the philological defectiveness of that sacred depository in which it has 
been placed by those whose lives were devoted to procure it, and whose spirits 
are invoked to preserve it. 

Too little attention is paid to the means employed in teaching children. Youth 
is the progressive state of both mind and body ; and, if either is neglected here, 
it never attains to that height in excellence to which our species is capable of 
ascending. The proper nourishment for both, while in this state, is logical and 
liberal action, — and, in exact proportion to the use of this, will be the strength of 
the body, and the capability of the soul. 

The subject of truth, and definition is generally kept out of our Seminaries of 
learning — hence it is, that lax phraseology, unmeaning description, and obscure 
expression pervade, and deform the works of our great men. 

A knowledge of the science of thought^ is the only information which can 
render a man fully competent to discharge the various duties which devolve upon 
him in the journey of life. As astronomy does not respect the relation of ideas 
in general, a knowledge of this science cannot render the mind skilful in other 
things. A man's knowledge of the relations of the celestial bodies which roll in 
the firmament upon God's will as their axle, does not give so much capability to 
acquire other sciences, as does his knowledge of the more celestial bodies which 
revolve in constellations in the mind, round God as their centre ! 

As language is the great medium through which the student gains access to art, 
and science, he should endeavour to make himself perfectly acquainted with this 
medium as soon as his age will enable him to study it. And, as language is 
nothing but thought embodied in tabernacles of sounds, and characters, the student 
must here study the science of thought, or remain ignorant of language. Lan- 
guage is the only thing in which thought is presented as a science. And, although 
it is said again, and again, that the pupil may attend to the philosophy of language 
after he shall have acquired the grammar of it, yet it is a truth which can not be 
controverted, that the constructive philosophy, and the grammar of a language, 
are the same thing! 

I do not intend to say that the jargon which is presented by Murray, Goold 
Brown, Bullions, &c. &c. as English grammar, is the philosophy of the English 
language. But I mean to say that English grammar is the constructive 
philosophy of the English language. 

No, no, — I should not like to impose upon myself the task of showing that the 
silly rules, ridiculous notes, and nickname definitions which disgrace their authors, 
and harm their students, are the philosoprj of the English language! 

The following definition of person is given by a recent mender of Murray — 



Vlll PREFACE. 

" Person, in grammar, is the relation of a noun or pronoun to what is said in 
discourse." 

" There are three persons, first, second, and third. The first person denotes 
the speaker, or writer ; — as / Paul have written it. The second person denotes 
the person addressed ; as Thou God seest me ; — the third person denotes the 
person or thing spoken of; as, Truth is mighty." — P. Bullions^ English 
Grammar. 

Now, as person is relation, the first person is the first relation. The second 
person is the second relation — and the third person is the third relation ! ! 
The practical philosophy of the thing, then, is this — 

The first relation denotes the speaker, or writer ; as, I Paul have written it ! 
Is the speaker denoted here by a relation 2 Is he not denoted by the word Paul ! ? 
Is this proper noun a relation ? 

The second relation denotes the person addressed ; as, " Thou, God, seest me !" 

The third relation denotes the person, or thing spoken of; as, Truth is mighty ! 

Is it not remarkably singular that a man who defines person to be a relation, and 
thus compels himself to say in the application of this false doctrine, that the speaker 
is denoted by a relation, should know any thing of truth? " Truth is mighty?' 

But it is mighty in the hands of those only, who love it. The man who can 
employ the word, truth, in illustration of the gross error which precedes, would 
be likely to treat truth as hag-born! 

But truth is mighty in every thing in which it is found — and, upon every thing 
to which it is applied. Truth in science acts as compost upon the mind of the 
student — truth in science draws out the affections of the student for the study of 
the science — truth in science falls upon the mind of the student like the dew-drop 
upon the grass. But that system from which liquid error is constantly drizzling 
into the mind of the student, renders the brain dropsical, and consequently, the 
whole mind feeble. 

Youth is the season allotted by nature to the exercise, and expansion of the 
soul — but man, lazy man, has contradicted this, and thus brought himself to a 
state so feeble that he can hardly protect his rights, hardly enjoy his freedom. 
Even the Constitution of the United States, although drawn up by the united 
talents of profound men, cannot be understood by any two impartial statesmen in the 
same way. The Senate cannot ascertain by this instrument, whether the Vice- 
President should control the senatorial body, or whether this body should control 
him ! Thousands have already been expended to determine this point from the 
language of the constitution, without the least success. 

As great a scholar, and as profound a statesman as has ever presided over this 
nation, understands the constitution of the Union to give the President power to 
send certain ministers, and other officers, from this, to foreign countries, without 
the consent of the Senate. But a Senate in no respect inferior to any which has 
ever adorned this Republic, understands this same instrument to require him to 
consult the Senate upon the subject of all foreign missions. Thus the same instru- 
ment is made to sustain conflicting measures whenever it pleases the contending 
parties to sanction deeds which are favourable to themselves. 

In the United States, the people are divided into two parties upon the constitution- 
ality of a national bank. Yes, ever since the government of these States has had 
an existence, one party has averred that the constitution sanctions a national bank, 
while the other has as long averred that it interdicts every thing of the kind. 
Thus, while the affirmative party has been erecting a national bank with this 
instrument, the negative one has been demolishing it with the same means ! 

I have ever been very much disposed to ascribe these individual, and national 
misfortunes to a want of skill in language. These sparrings which tax a nation's 
wealth, these concussions in the political elements, which carry horror in their 
vibrations, these eddies which sometimes whirl in amazement, nation after nation, 



PREFACE. IX 

these adverse winds which give being, and energy to faction, are the storms 
which ambition directs by riding upon the clouds of the constitution. It is in 
these clouds that ambition lurks — it is from these that the thunder of eloquence 
will burst — it is from these, that the lightning of genius will play, first to the con- 
sternation, then to the destruction of our political Eden. 

He that has attended with common observation to what passes daily in society 
in general, has found that most of the difficulties which distract neighbourhoods, 
and array even brother against brother, and carry both before a judge, and jury, 
arise from a want of clearly defining the conditions of their contracts. It 
becomes every man therefore to understand the language of his own country — he 
should consider it as an instrument employed in the transaction of business — as a 
means used for the preservation of peace, — as a high qualification in social hours, 
— and an invaluable blessing through life. 

Is it too late to begin a reform \ If not, let it be commenced in our primary 
schools — let our language be understood by the teacher, and by him, let it be 
taught to the pupil — let the absurd, parrot-like mode of teaching it be ridiculed out 
of use, and out of being — let children learn to think — and let parents employ the 
teachers who will enable their children to think. 

Let the institutions in which our youth complete their education, give attention 
to our own language — too much time is devoted to the dead languages. 

Arnerican statesmen must be acquainted with their own language, or this 
Republic is of short duration. 

This republic came into being by political revolution — and it must attain to 
its destined rank, and sway by literary innovation. 

The greatest freedom to which a nation can aspire is complete emancipation 
from literary thraldom — few nations, however, arrive at this commanding eminence. 
Rome once possessed it; and she was the glory, and admiration of the world. 

In times of innovation, however, every caution should be enlivened with fear — 
yet attempered with reason. The enraged genius of one individual has some- 
times drawn whole nations from the bosom of their laws, and from the inmost 
recesses of their salutary habits. But injury has rarely resulted from the feats of 
genius directed to the improvement of art, or science. Even where the primary 
object is not accomplished, good often results from the exertions of the disappoin- 
ted. Was the philosopher's stone discovered — was the elixir of life procured? Yet 
the falacious attempts of the disappointed, prepared the way for discoveries of 
great importance to the human race. And, although the great minds that pursued 
these objects, did enlarge the circle of science, they were severely punished for 
their crimes with sneers, ridicule and persecution ! 

Attempts to improve the arts, and sciences rarely escape the consequences 
common to virulence, prejudice, and ambition. The race of genius has generally 
been converted into detestable war, and the ground of improvement turned into 
a field of battle. And while the bones of some have remained bleaching as a 
memento to the folly, and cruelty of man, the fate of others has been long, and 
dismal incarceration. But in modern days, few are immured within the gloomy 
walls of the criminal's prison : innovators, inventers, and improvers, the 
distinguished benefactors of the human race, are now subjected to torture upon 
the rack of the public press ! 

And a thousand minor means are always employed to aid in the chastisement 
of the greatly useful men, as well as in the misrepresentation of the most 
salutary measures. He whose reflections have never been sufficient to undeceive 
his own mind, has not unfrequently prated to the temporary detriment of real 
improvement. The literary fop, and the scientific coxcomb, have striven with the 
credulous, and ignorant ; who, for a while, have withheld their support from 
important discoveries. And the envious, who pines under the success of another, 
has too often convened all his malign passions, held a caucus with himself to devise 
means for defeat, and disgrace. 



X PREFACE. 

When did envy emit her infuriated flame, and wrap the invaluable Linnaeus 
in a fiery sheet of slander? It was when reason, as though endowed with 
religion, was patient — it was when the genius, and industry of Linnaeus produced 
that botanical system which adorns the present age — it was when the former 
theories upon this science were converted into fortifications to save their votaries, 
and defeat the march of truth. 

Where are those who ridiculed a Newton for years? Disappointment is 
their historian ; and shame is the theme of his pen. And, while the services of 
our own Clinton, couple him with the great of other times, the connection has 
been confirmed by the sanction of similar persecutions. The tongues, of prejudice, 
which his canal enterprize raised, hold a numeral competition with the particles 
of earth, thrown out in the excavation. But while the shame of thousands is seen 
blusMfyg. through the waters of the Western canal, the praise of its projector is 
heard rippling under its boats. — And as long as the note of merit is sweet to any, 
America will be charmed by the music of the voice which utters the name of Clinton. 

The new system of English grammar presents a new scene to the minds of 
men ; and the grand problem is, whether it deserves their fostering care, or their 
frowns, and reprehensions. 

Perhaps there is no middle point upon which men can place this undertaking — 
they can hardly justify a neutral ground. And it comes to this nation with 
increased claim to attention, as America is now the great theatre of glorious enter- 
prise, and useful discovery. 

What it may be inquired is this new system? It is a plan of instruction calcu- 
lated to rouse the mind of the pupil, arid to employ his perceptive powers. It is 
a system of grammar calculated to shorten the distance from youth to manhood 
by accelerating the progress of the mind. The new theory is a system of teach- 
ing, which smooths the rugged road to knowledge, over which the old Gram- 
matical vehicle has for ages rumbled. It is a system obviously differing from all 
others: it is a species of innovation which must meet, and withstand the usual 
opposition. Yes, the work of innovation is a Herculean task : it is an enterprise 
opposed by the pride of some, the virulence of others, and the habits of all. Few, 
however, are so bewildered by pride of opinion, that, sooner or later, they 
do not yield their assent to the introduction of real improvement. But there 
always will be some, who, led captive, by prejudice, will exert their utmost strength 
to oppose the tide of improvement. In the variegated machinery of human com- 
pacts, and associations, however, these are by no means, useless — yet while I 
value them as important in the race of improvement, I pity their condition, and 
rejoice that it is not my own. 

The Americans, as a people, though various in descent, are one in purpose. 
And it is by this unique character, that the influence of a difference in pedigree, 
is met, and subdued. It is not birth ; nor is it residence, but coincidence in views, 
audi purpose, which makes one an American. And he, and he alone, is an Ameri- 
can, born here, or elsewhere, whether of Irish, or German descent, whose conduct 
accords with the spirit o{ American laws, whose eye is upon our constitution, as the 
ark in which his liberty is deposited, — and who couples, with his own advancement, 
the promotion of the whole. And it is to the Americans that this enterprise is 
addressed. It is to a people, liberal, according to their means, beyond any other ; 
it is to a people, willing, beyond any other, to try all things, and hold fast that 
which is good — it is to a people needy, from the nature of their government, 
beyond any other, of general, early, and correct information. In a country like 
this, where equal rights are the life of the government, and general intelligence the 
lungs through which she respires, the means of education rise in importance above 
almost every other topic of national, or individual reflection. Let America, then, 
not tremble at innovation — let her continue to use the burnisher of genius till the 
glitter of the spires, ascending from her Temples of science, shall light even her 
mother to fame. 



AN APPEAL FROM ERROR TO TRUTH. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE OLD DEFINITION OF A NOUN. 

We have devoted several years to the subject of 
grammar — and the main part of our attention, has 
been given to four points ; namely, truth, and 
error in the science itself, and right, and wrong in 
the means of communicating it to others. And 
although we have read many books which pro- 
fessedly treat on this subject, we cannot bestow a 
very high encomium upon any. How much we 
have been benefitted by giving them a share of our 
attention for a few years, we cannot tell. But, 
while we are constrained to say that the advantage 
which we have derived, is too small to be con- 
sidered a fair compensation for our labour, we can- 
not withhold the expression of our surprise, and 
even astonishment, at the introduction of these 
works into our schools. 

All the books through which we have plodded, 
seem to us to be founded upon detached principles 
of various sciences which are entirely unconnected 
with the subject of grammar. For example — ac- 
tion, yes, motion itself, is employed as one of the 
parts of these conflicting systems ! Action, mo- 
tion, however, is not a grammatical principle ! Nor 
does the absurdity stop here, for even actors them- 
selves have been brought into them, and been 
made to play no inconsiderable part in the gram- 
mar farce 1- And being, as though these systems 
could hardly even exist without it, figures as a star 
of the first magnitude. 

Now action, agents, and being, may hold a con- 
spicuous place in a system of metaphysics, but 
how they can become parts of a system of gram- 
mar, is not very clear to us. But what is as much 
of a curiosity as any thing which these grammar 
kaleidoscopes present, is the fact that their authors, 
after making action, actors, and objects the very 
foundation of their systems, proceed upon the 
ground that language is an abstract nothing, and 
a sentence, the mere child of the imagination ! 
Whereas, language considered in its true light, 
seems to be as tangible as a clock, and a sentence 
as much a piece of mechanism as a watch. A 
sentence, indeed, is & frame-work of words ! A word 
is a house, a temple, constructed of sound, ink, 
paint, metal, or other matter, which is occupied by 
the meaning, the signification itself! 

Thus a sentence is a little village, a cluster of 
buildings, various in their shape, size, and occu- 
pants. Thus, too, while a chapter is a whole ward 

Vol. I.— 1 



of a verbal city, and a sentence one block of houses, 
a whole book is the entire city, peopled by those 
significant citizens that are engaged exclusively 
in the commerce of ideas. Language, then, is a 
frame-work, and grammar the architectural prin- 
ciples upon which this frame-work is formed. 
Hence he who desires to make a book to be used 
in teaching grammar, should confine himself to 
constructive principles. To say what the word 
must mean to be of any particular class, is to 
leave the frame-work of the house, and attempt to 
say something of its occupant. Remember this — 
the mere grammarian is not to teach the nature 
of the liquid, but the entire construction of the 
vessel. Or, it is not the province of the mere 
grammarian to describe the fruit, but the frame- 
work of the basket which contains the fruit ! 

" A substantive or noun is the name of any 
thing that exists, or of which we have any notion ; 
as, London, man, virtue, vice.'''' (Murray.) 

That Mr. Murray should have given the above 
as a definition of a noun, is really astonishing [ 
If we compare it with his definition of words hi 
general, we shall find the two to be the same in 
substance, and nearly the same in expression ! 
Mark the universality of the above attempt at the 
noun's definition : 

" A noun is the name of any thing that exists !" 

One is here led to ask, what are the names of 
things which do not exist, called ? ! ! 

" Or a noun is the name of that thing of which 
we have any notion." 

The name of the thing of which we have an 
idea, a notion, is a noun I But the name of the 
thing of which we have no idea, no notion, is not 
a noun I 

By this definition things are divided into four 
distinct classes, viz. 

1. Things which exist! 

2. Things which exist not ! 

3. Things of which we have some idea! 

4. Things of which we have no idea! 

Every one who reads this definition of a noun 
with care, must see that it supposes things to be 
divided in this way. A noun is the name of any 
thing which exists, or of any thing of which we 
have a notion. 

This definition of the noun compels the pupil to 
anticipate that the next part of speech will be 
defined as follows : 

An adjective is the name of a thing which does 
not exist, or of a thing of which we have no 
notion ! 



APPEAL. 



The old school grammarians define words as 
follows : 

" Words are articulate sounds used by common 
consent as the signs of our ideas." 

Here they hold that all words are signs ; and, 
as signs are neither more, nor less than names, 
they inadvertently say that all words are nouns ! 
This truth, however, they deny when they come 
to the process of parsing. 

1. "John writes letters accurately." 

John, a noun. 

writes, a verb ! 

letters, sl noun. 

accurately, an adverb ! 

All the words in this sentence are signs, names ; 
yet. only two of them are parsed as nouns ! ! 

To say that writes is a verb is to affirm that 
writes is not a sign, not a name, of any thing ! 

But who can not see that " writes'''' is as much 
the name of the action as is " John" the sign of the 
actor ! ? If, then, " John" is a noun because it is 
a sign, a name, is not " writes" a noun ? 

By saying that " accurately" is an adverb, it is 
declared that this word is not a sign, not a name. 
But is there a child who can read English, that can 
not see that " accurately" is as much the name of 
the manner of writing as is "letters" the sign of 
the things written ! ? 

2. " John put his hand behind his head." 
John, a noun. 

put, a verb ! 
his, a pronoun! 
hand, a noun. 
behind, a preposition ! 
his, a pronoun ! 
head, a noun. 

1. Is not put the sign, the name of the action ? 
why, then, is not this word a noun ? 

2. Is not his the sign of an idea ! ? why, then, 
is his employed ? Does not his express the same 
idea which " John's" would express was John's 
used in the place of his ? And, would not John's 
be called a noun ! ! Why, then, is not " his" a 
noun ! ! ? " John's" is the sign, the name, of John, 
in his possessive relation to the hand — and, as his 
is the sign, the name, of the same thing, why is 
not " his" as clearly a noun as is John's ! ! ? " Be- 
hind" is the sign, the name of the place where 
John put his hand. And, as a noun is the name 
of any person, place, or thing, why is not this pre- 
position a noun ! ! ? Will it be said that behind is 
not the name of a place!!? Reader, is not behind 
the sign, the name of the place in which it is 
said that John placed his hand ? " Head" is the 
name of the thing — and " behind" is the name of 
a place which belongs to that thing ! 

The true sense of the definition of a noun as 
given by the old school grammarians, is that, 
A noun is the name of any thing whatever. 



And to this idea all grammarians have adhered. 
— A word is what ? A word is the sign of any 
thing whatever. Hence, there is no difference be- 
tween the definition of a noun, and the definition 
of all words. Sign, and name are the same in 
idea. 

1. Words are articulate sounds, used by common 
consent as the names of our ideas. 

2. A noun is the sign of any thing of which 
we have a notion ; as, man, London, virtue, 
vice, behind, under, red, high, in, out, at, vnth, 
near, on. 

If, therefore, the definition which the old school 
grammarians give of words, embraces all words, 
the definition which they give of a noun, includes 
all words! 

" A noun is the name of any thing that exists, 
or of which we have a notion." 

We ask who can reconcile this definition to the 
constructive genius of any language ? 

The practice under this definition proceeds upon 
the absurd ground that all verbs, all adjectives, nil 
articles, all prepositions, all conjunctions, all ad- 
verbs, and all interjections, are not signs of ideas. 
Yes, it is the bold, the inconsistent, ground of this 
definition of a noun, that all these classes of words 
are redundant parts of that glorious production 
whose beauty, power, and usefulness, are admired 
by man, and ascribed to God himself! 

1. " Henry purchased leather in shoes." 

2. " John purchased leather shoes." 

" As Henry purchased leather in shoes, he must 
have purchased leather shoes." Or, 

" As Henry purchased leather which was made 
into shoes, he must have purchased leather shoes." 

1. "Leather" before in or which, is a noun. 

2. " Leather" before shoes is not a noun, but an 
adjective. 

Is not the word, " leather" a sign, a name, in 
both places ? This word is not only a sign, a 
name in both instances ; but in both, it is the 
name of the same thing ! Yes, here is a word 
which is the name of the very same thing, (the 
material of which the shoes are made) in both in- 
stances — yet in one the word is parsed as a sign, 
a name, a noun, while in the other it is parsed as 
an adjective ! ! ! ! ! 

Still the perplexed pupil is unblushingly told 
both by teacher, and author, that the name of a 
thing is a noun ! ! 

What is the difference between " virtue," and 
virtuous ?" 

1. " A woman of virtue" 

2. " A virtuous woman." 

A woman of virtue is a virtuous woman — and 
a virtuous woman is a woman of virtue. Yet vir- 
tue is called a noun — and virtuous an adjective ! 
But why this difference in the manner of parsing 
these two forms of the same word ? Does the 
definition of a noun answer this question ? 

" A noun is the name of something." 



APPEAL. 



That is, a noun is the sign, of something. And 
is not virtuous the sign, the name, of something ? 
If not, virtue is not the name of any thing : 
virtue, and virtuous, express the same idea, the 
same thing. Henee, if virtuous is excluded from 
the noun family upon the ground that it is not the 
name of any thing, virtue is an illegitimate mem- 
ber of this family of words! 

We admit that there is a grammatical difference 
between these two forms, of the same word. But 
we say that this difference should be expressed in 
the definition of the noun. The definition which 
expresses that part of speech trait of character, 
which is peculiar to the noun, must express that 
particular property which makes virtue grammati- 
cally different from virtuous. 

Both virtue and virtuous are names. Hence the 
definition which is founded upon the name trait of 
character must include both forms. 

When virtuous is used as a foundation name in 
the frame -work of a sentence, it is used in the 
primitive form ; as, 

" Virtue is commendable. 

But, when virtue is used as a mere branch, a 
mere clade, it is employed in one of its two deriva- 
tive forms ; as, 

" Virtuous persons live virtuously. 

Virtue, virtuous, virtuously. 

These are one word in three different forms. 
Under one of its forms, this word is not only able 
to sustain itself, but other words which may 
depend upon it ; as, 

Inflexible virtue, Stern virtue. 

But when virtue becomes virtuous, and vir- 
tuously, it resembles a drunken man : it can hardly 
stand alone ; as, 

Virtuous. 

The mind is driven to enquire — virtuous what ? 
What is virtuous ? 

The word in this form is constantly reaching 
for some post, pump, chair, or wall, against which 
to lean ! 

Virtue, like the man before he is intoxicated, 
stands without reeling, without staggering; as, 

Virtue. 

The mind sees that virtue can sustain itself- — 
hence it is not engaged in searching for something 
on which " virtue' 1 '' can rest. 

When the word is in that form which enables it 
to sustain itself, and other words also, it is parsed 
as a noun ; as 

A woman of virtue. 

But when it is in a form which deprives it of 
self-sustaining power, it is parsed as an adjective, 
or as an adverb ; as, 

" Virtuous persons live virtuously" 

Noun, noun ! What a name for a word ! " Noun" 
is derived from the Latin nomen, a name ! ! ! 

Noun" and name, then, are synonymous \ 



Hence the definition which the old school gram- 
marians give of a noun is as follows — 

1. A noun is the noun of any thing which exists, 
or of which we have a notion ! ! Or, 

2. A name is tho name of any thing which 
exists, or of which we have a notion • ! 

And as nominative is made from the Latin, 
no?nen, nominative is much the same as name. 
Here then, are three technicals all derived from 
the same source — all having the same import ; and 
all applied to one part of speech to the confusion of 
both teacher and pupil. 

" John laughs." 

John, a noun, in the nominative case to is ! 
That is, John is a name, in the name case to 
is! !! 

Noun is name — and name is noun — and nomina- 
tive is as much noun as name ! 

i name. 
The whole batch is nonsense. > noun. 

) nominative. 
Let us repeat the old definition. — 
" A noun or substantive is the name of any 
thing that exists, or of which we have any notion ;" 
as, Foster makes carding machines. 

The words, Foster, and machines are called 
nouns : And why ? because they are names of 
things of which we have a notion ! ! 

And what is the word makes called ? makes is 
a verb ! why not a noun ? surely makes must be 
the name of an action of which Foster has a notion ; 
for, how can he construct these complicated 
machines without a knowledge of the action which 
he performs ? 

" The last race was run by these two horses." 
Race is a noun — but run is a verb ! 
Now reader, observe this. — The definition of a 
noun, and that of a verb, are founded upon the 
signification of the words which are called nouns, 
and verbs. And here are two words which signify 
the same action ; yet one word is called a noun, 
and the other a verb ! Yes, race is called a noun ! 
But run, which denotes the same action, is called 
a verb 1 

" That word which denotes a thing of which we 
can have a notion, is a noun ; as, the last race was 
run by these horses ! ! But what is a verb ? " A verb 
is a word which signifies being, action, or suffer- 
ing ;" as, the last race was run by these horses ! 
1. Which word denotes something of which we 
can have a notion — is it race, or run ? Why, both 
— then both are nouns ! Which words denote 
action ? Both denote action — then both are verbs ! ! 
We do not object to the placing of these words 
in different classes — but we object to the defini- 
tions by the first of which, both words are made 
nouns — and by the second, both are made verbs ! 

Again — For, to, from, through, &c, are called 
prepositions. — By this, it would seem that the old 
school grammarians consider that these words 
are not the signs, not the names of any thing 



APPEAL. 



which exists, or of which we have a notion. But 
a slight attention to the following- illustration, will 
show that these words are the signs of things that 
exist, and of which, we have notions not less clear 
than those which we form of " London, man, vir- 
tue, vice.'''' 

From : Beginning. 

Through : Door. 

To : End. 

For : Cause. 

From is synonymous with beginning, through 
with door, to with end, for with cause. 

from through 

John rode beginning Philadelphia, door New 
Jersey 

to for 

end New York, cause his brother. 
Now as these prepositions are evidently the 
names of things which exist, and of which we have 
a clear notion, we trust,, that the friends to the 
old theory, will abandon this definition of a noun, 
or consent to call these prepositions, nouns. 
Further, — " He writes accurately." 

" The pupil writes with accuracy," 
Accurately is styled an adverb. This word, 
however, should, from the old definition of a 
noun, be called a noun. The word is the name of 
the manner of writing: and it follows that the 
mind has no idea of this manner, or that the word, 
accurately, is inaccurately named ! 

Waiving the misnomer in this case, let us 
examine the classification of the word which 
denotes the same thing, in the following instance : 
The pupil writes with accuracy. 
Here, the term, accuracy, is the sign of that for 
which the word, accurately stands in the first 
instance. But is accuracy called an adverb ? Accu- 
racy is denominated a noun ? Were we to take 
these fcolutions with the definition of the noun, as 
a rule of judging, must we not say that in the first 
instance, the mind has no idea of the manner of 
writing, but that in the last, it has a clear, a distinct 
notion of it ? 

The definition of the noun, includes too much to 
comport with the solution of the language. By 
the definition, all words are nouns ; but in the 
solution of the language, a small part comes under 
the denomination of noun. 

Accuracy, and accurately are two forms of the 
same word. The import of the word, is the same 
under both modifications. Accuracy differs from 
accurately only in its degree of constructive im- 
portance in the mono. Accuracy is employed as 
the foundation of the mono, and is that to which 
the word with is appended. 

Accurately in point of construction, is employed 
as a branch part of the mono, and is two construc- 
tive degrees from the foundation of the mono to 
which it belongs. Accuracy is the independent 
form ; that is, a form in which the name is when 
it is used without requiring, or implying, a con- 



structive dependence upon any other word. Ac- 
curately is the social, or dependent form, ana 
implies, and requires constructive dependence 
upon another word of higher rank. 

In the spirit of Mr. Murray's definition, both 
accuracy, and accurately are nouns ; because, Mi 
definition is founded on the capacity of a word to 
denote some idea ! 

The definition in the new system, being founded 
on constructive importance, or mechanical inde- 
pendence, accuracy only, can become a noun. All 
the words denominated nouns in parsing the lan- 
guage, are exalted, and linked together by their 
high constructive rank, — by their power to stand 
alone, and thus brought into the same family; 
hence, a definition of a noun, to include all those 
Avords denominated nouns in the solution of the 
language, without embracing any more, must be 
founded on this constructive importance. A defini- 
tion, founded on this, is a Hercules against the soph- 
ist, and a blazing torch in the hand of the learner. 

We will fancy that the common definition of a 
noun is presented to a child; and, after he has 
fairly perused it, let it be supposed that the follow- 
ing period is placed before him, and that he is 
requested to select the nouns which it contains : 

" Stephen built the red house ; but Samuel, the 
yellow house." 

Now, then, as a noun is the name of any thing 
which we can see, feel, taste, or discourse of, would 
not the child be as likely to call red, and yellow 
nouns as house ? Or, will it be said that these 
adjectives arc the names, the signs, of things which 
do not exist, of things that we cannot see ? Per- 
haps, too, it may be replied, that these colors are 
not things : hence, yellow, and red cannot be 
nouns ! We would ask those who reason thus, 
whether virtue, vice, necessity, sweetness, &c, are 
things ? We would ask, too, whether a man is a 
thing ? and whether London is a thing ? The 
names, London, man, virtue, vice, &c, are nouns. 
"A noun is the name of any person, place, or 
thing ; as, man, London, virtue, vice" 

As man, London, virtue, and vice are nouns, 
they are names. But what renders these words 
names ? The definition of words gives these four 
signs nothing which it does not bestow upon all 
other words. How, then, can these four words be 
any more names than in, red, black, green, walks, 
writes, here, &c. ? 

It is the sign trait of character, which renders 
man London, virtue, and vice, names. And have 
not all words this very trait ? Why, then, are not 
all words rendered names by it ? If the sign trait 
can render man, London, virtue, and vice, names, 
can it not render all other words names ? Why, 
then, are not all other words as much nouns as 
these four ? 

Words are articulate sounds used by common 
consent as the signs of our ideas. Murray. 
A noun is the name of any person, place, or 



APPEAL. 



thing, any thing which exists, any thing of which 
you can have a notion. Murray. 
Read the following with care : 

1. If all words are signs, under, over, Sec, are 
signs : all words are signs ; therefore under, over, 
Sec, arc signs, 

2. If all signs are names, under, over, Sec, are 
names: all signs are names; therefore under, 
over, Sec, are names. 

3. If all names arc nouns, wider, over, Sec, are 
nouns : all names are nouns ; therefore under, 
over, Sec, are nouns ! 

The Substitute. 

A DENOMINATION OF WORDS. 

A denomination of words is a number of verbal 
signs, which have the same characteristic mark. 

[The word, noun, means but one word, as John 
is a noun. But the words, noun denomination, 
mean an entire class of words, the whole family of 
nouns.] 

It seems perfectly inconsistent with philosophy^ 
that a system of Grammar should not contain class 
names. 

The word, book, is a noun ; but this word is not 
a class of words ! The word, walks, is a verb ; 
but as the word walks, is not a class of words, how 
can it be said that the word verb, is the name of a 
class of words ? 

To supply this deficiency, it seems necessary to 
have a technical term which means a class of 
words. Therefore I have employed the word, 
denomination, in the sense of a class of words. 

Characteristic. 

In Grammar, a characteristic is the property by 
which a word is thrown into a particular denomi- 
nation. 

Under Classiology, the words of the English 
Language, are divided into ten denominations. 
But, as in analyzing words, it is convenient to 
speak of them singly, each member of a denomina- 
tion, receives, as its individual name, the particular 
distinctive epithet which designates its own denomi- 
tion. 

In English, there are ten denominations of 
words, viz. : 

1. Noun denomination. 

2. Pronoun denomination, 

3. Verb denomination. 

4. Preposition denomination. 

5. Conjunction denomination. 

6. Adjectiv-e denomination. 

7. Subadjective denomination. 

8. Adverb denomination. 

9. Subadverb denomination. 
10. Interjection denomination. 

There is certainly a serious objection to the fol- 
lowing language which is used by the old school 
grammarians : 



" There are ten parts of speech." 
As every word in a language is a part of it, 
there must be as many jwrts of speech as there 
are words in a language. Every verb is a part of 
a language. Hence if there are ten thousand verbs 
in the English language, the verbs alone make 
ten thousand parts of speech ! ! 

1. THE NOUN DENOMINATION, 

Is a class of trunk words which are the regular, 
fixed names of the things that hold a trunk rank 
in the collocation, or presentation, of the objects of 
thought ; as, Ring, gold, leather, cloth, book, pen, 
paper, virtue, vice. 

The word, trunk, expresses not only an ability 
to stand alone, but a capacity to sustain branch 
matter. 

Now, whether an object becomes trunklike from 
the circumstance that it is taken alone, or from 
the consideration that it is taken with branch 
matter which it is made to sustain, the regular 
fixed name by which it is presented, is a noun; 
as, ring, large gold ring. 

In the first, the ring is taken alone — it is able 
to stand by itself — hence the ring, in this isolated 
state, resembles a trunk without a branch. 

In the second instance, the ring is taken in con- 
nection with branch matter which cannot sustain 
itself, for the size, and kind cannot stand without 
the aid of the ring to which they naturally belong, 
and on which, they as naturally depend as do the 
branches upon the trunk. 

In the following, the ring is presented by the 
word, it — and, as this little word is not the regular, 
fixed name of any object, the word, it, is not of the 
noun denomination. 

That is a beautiful ring — may I examine it- 

Additional Illustrations. 

1. Gold ring. 

2. Ring dove. 

3. Leather shoe. 

4. Shoe leather. 

5. Pie apples. 

6. Apple pie. 

7. John is here. 

8. John Adams was there. 

9. Where is the man ? 

10. Where is the man servant ? 

11. Call the servant maid. 

12. Tell the maid servant to come here. 

13. Joseph bought a good peach. 

14. Joseph Brown has peach brandy. 

15. Brass rules are made of brass. 

QUESTIONS. 

1. Why is ring, in the first syllabane, a noun ? 

Because it is a trunk word which is a regular, 
fixed name of an object that holds a trunk rank 
in the mind's own collocation of the two things 
named in the syllabane. [The material, and the 
thing made.] 



APPEAL. 



2. Why is not ring, in the second syllabane, a 
noun ? 

Ring here, is not even a trunk word. Ring, in 
the second instance, is not only not a trunk word, 
but it is not the name of an object which holds a 
trunk rank in the mind's collocation of the two 
things mentioned in the syllabane. Ring, in the 
second instance, is a branch word, and is the name 
of a distinctive mark which holds a branch rank 
in the mind's collocation, or disposition of it in 
respect to the dove. 



REMARK. 

is to the branch parts in the 



What the trunk 
framework of a tree, the noun is to the branch 
words in the framework of a syllabane ; as, Good 
gold, Moses smote the rock. Gold, Moses, and 
rock are nouns. 

It is curious to see the course which the formers 
of the old theory of grammar, have taken to appear 
to be consistent. In their definition of a noun, 
they affect to think that all words are not signs, 
not names '. They start out with the position that 
there are ten parts of speech. And then they con- 
struct their definition of a noun in a way which 
implies that there is but one class of words that are 
signs of our ideas. 

" Words are articulate sounds used by common 
consent as the signs, the names, of our ideas." 

" There are ten, or there are nine parts of 
speech in English ; namely, noun, article, verb, 
adjective, conjunction, preposition, adverb, par- 
ticiple, pronoun, and interjection" 

1. " Any word which is the sign of an idea, is 
a noun ; as, man, virtue, vice.'''' 

But, says the objector, this is not the exact 
phraseology of the old definition of a noun. We 
quote the sense, not the words. The old school 
grammarians having defined all the words to be 
signs, they select a certain class which they define 
by substituting name for sign ! And it is really 
amusing to observe the great pains which they 
have taken to avoid the use of both sign, and 
name, in defining the other classes of words ! In 
defining the article, they do not say in so many 
words, that an article is the name of the extent of 
a noun's signification. But, instead of saying 
that an article is the name of the noun's extent of 
signification, by the direct use of the word, name, 
they say it in the following way : 

" An article is a word placed before nouns to 
point them out, and show how far their significa- 
tion extends .'" 

To show the extent ! That is, to name, to 
signify, to express, the noun's extent of applica- 
tion, by being the sign, or name, of this extent! 
There is no other way in which an article can 
show a noun's extent of application. 

2. In defining the conjunction, they use the 
following phraseology: 

" A conjunction is a part of speech that is chiefly 
used to connect sentences." 



But in what way does a conjunction connect 
sentences ? Why, by expressing, by signifying, 
by pointing out, that which produces the connec- 
tion. That which produces the connection between 
sentences, may be the cause, the effect, the opposi- 
tion, the similarity, &c, &c, which exist in any 
certain c^ses. For instance : " It was a cold 
day, — therefore I remained in the house." 

My remaining within is an efFect of which the 
conjunction, therefore, is the sign, or name. 

" Again : " He came home, because he wished 
to see his friends." 

His wish to see his friends was the cause of his 
coming home ; and, of this cause the conjunction 
because, is the name, or sign. We do not mean 
to be understood to say, that because is the name 
of wishing as an action, but as a cause. The 
word, wished, is the name of this event of the 
mind, as an action. But this action has a causa- 
tive relation, or connection with the action of 
returning ; and because is the name, the sign, of 
this causative connection. Let us, then, say that, 
A conjunction is the sign, or name of those 
relative circumstances which produce a connec- 
tion between sentences ; as, John is good, there- 
fore he is happy. But his brother is unhappy, 
because he is bad." 

3. They tell us that an adjective is a part of 
speech which expresses some quality of a noun ; 
as, Red cloth, Blue eyes, Great minds. 

But why not say at once that, 

An adjective is the name of the quality of a 
noun ; as, Round table, Square timber ? 

But they choose to say that an adjective is a 
part of speech which expresses some quality ! 
How can a word express a quality unless it is the 
name, or sign, of quality ! ? 

4. "A verb is a word which signifies being, 
action, or suffering ; as, I am, I walk, my head 
aches. 

Why not say at once, 

A verb is the name of being, action, or suffer- 
ing ? Because this way of expressing the idea, 
would lay the axe at the very root of their defini- 
tion of a noun. A noun is the name. No other 
signs are to be called names ! ! To avoid the use 
of " name" they choose to say that a verb signi- 
fies by being a name I 

5. " An adverb is a word joined to verbs, adjec- 
tives, participles, and to other adverbs, to express 
some quality, or circumstance respecting it." 

To express some quality. That is, to express 
some quality by being the sign, or name of it! 
Why not say, then, that, 

An adverb is the name of some quality, or cir- 
cumstance of the verb, adjective, participle, or 
adverb? (This question we have already an- 
swered.) 

6. " A preposition serves to connect words with 
one another, and to show a relation between 
them." 



APPEAL. 



9 



What we have said upon the conjunction, is 
applicable to the preposition also. 

A preposition is the name of the relative circum- 
stances which connect one word with another. 

7. " A pronoun is a word which is used to 
avoid the too frequent repetition of a noun." 

A pronoun is a secondary name, and is used to 
prevent the too frequent repetition of a noun, the 
primary name ; as, Jane lost the book, and Charles 
found it. (Book, the primary, and it the secondary 
name.) 

8. An interjectiou is the name of some sudden 
emotion of joy, fear, dislike, &c. 

We have thus demonstrated that each class of 
words can be defmed by the use of name. Having 
done this, we would remark that we believe that 
the definitions in which we have used the word, 
name, are just as unsound in principle, as those 
from which the old school grammarians have 
carefully excluded this word. In the above defini- 
tions, we have built upon the principles on which 
the old school authors have. 

Ye, that are opposed to a revolution in gram- 
matical system answer these arguments — and do 
it in a. public, candid manner. 



CHAPTER II.; 

CASE IN ENGLISH. 

In some languages there are certain endings, or 
terminations which are called case. These termi- 
nations are as significant as the words to which 
they belong ; each pointing out, not only a particu- 
lar relation, but also the particular words between 
which this relation exists. But, upon the nouns 
in our language, no such endings are to be found. 

It is possible, however, that the caseless condi- 
tion of a few nouns in the Latin, may be resorted 
to, to justify the use of case in English ; and to 
meet this circumstance in advance, we shall make 
a few remarks upon this point. And first, if the 
principles of another language, are to be seized as 
a rule by which to try our position with respect to 
case in English, we shall take the general princi- 
ples, not the idiomatic eccentricities of that lan- 
guage. The Latin, so far as it respects cases, 
proceeds on the principle of terminations. And 
the fact that cases is applied in some few instances 
where the noun has no termination, certainly 
never can be taken as ground for deciding the 
broad principle of case in our own language. 
Were case terminations in the Latin, a mere 
deviation from the general principles of that lan- 
guage, case would be improperly used in its gram- 
matical solution. But, as there are few instances 
in which there is not a case termination,' the 
general case principles of Latin nouns involve 
terminations • hence case may be considered some- 
what applicable to the nouns in that language. 

Vol. I.— 2 



In English no noun has a case form. The noun 
in the possessive case, is nothing but an adjective, 
as, John's hat. The part which is called the 
case, ('s) is as much an adjective affix, as is ic, 
al, ine, &c. Among the pronouns, there are only 
three, or four which vary in their form as they 
pass, and repass from the nominative to the adjec 
tive. 

In every regular language, the nouns have cer- 
tain forms, or inflections which are called the cases 
of this class of words. 

A regular language, however, is very different 
from ours. A regular language is rich in termina- 
tions ; ours is an irregular one, and is lean, poor, 
in grammatical trappings. The genius of the 
English language does not afford our nouns these 
significant terminations. And as our language is 
without the terminations, let our Grammar be 
without their name. Case is the name of these 
terminations; and did the forms pertain to our 
nouns, their name might be a proper part of our 
Grammar. But, as it is, to give to youth the term, 
case, as means to enable them to understand any 
of the principles of the English language, is to 
hand a child a phial, and to bid him fill it with a 
very particular medicine, when but a mere speck 
of such an article has ever existed in the whole 
materia medica ! 

But, in reply, it will be said, that the desideratum 
is to enable the learner to acquire a knowledge of 
that relation which exists between the verb, and 
the nouns that are parsed with it : and, because 
this is effected by the present theory of cases, the 
end is completely answered. To this it may be 
replied, that even without any fixed case theory, 
the same knowledge could be acquired. But does 
the possibility of accomplishing without instru- 
ments, do away their use ? or does the certainty 
of success with imperfect means, destroy the im- 
portance of those that are perfect? If so, because 
D. can dig with his hands, to him a spade is of 
no use ! 

The pronoun me, is said to be the objective case 
of I. But case means form, shape termination, 
The word, me, however, is a distinct, a new, a 
different word ! Was me, a mere affix, and 
placed thus, — Ime, me, might then be said to be 
the case of I. 

The only pronouns in our language, which have 
the nominative case, are they, thou, he, and who 
For, they, and than, may be considered the same 
word in different cases, or forms. Thou, and thee, 
are different cases of the same word. He, and 
him, are different forms, or cases of the same 
word. Who, and whom are different cases of the 
same word. 

But she, and her, are two diacrent words. We, 
and us, are different words ; and not different 
cases, or forms of the same word. 

The pronouns, which, it, you, what, as, mine, 
yours, &c, are nominative, and objectives without 



10 



APPEAL. 



any variation in form — hence they have nothing 
at all, which can be called case I Why, then, the 
question recurs, have we imported the term, case, 
this useless, this worse than useless commodity, 
from Rome to America? We have as much use 
for it as a man who is without a horse, would have 
for a saddle '. Why should a country that has no 
grain to grind, erect mills to make flour ! Why 
should the people of America attach a fanciful 
property to their language ? Why, merely for the 
sake of using a Roman instrument in handling 
this property • ! This case theory, in the English 
language, is an artificial hue which hides the 
native colour from the eye of the child. 

The word, case, however, is not applicable to 
the terminations of which we have spoken in this 
chapter. 

" Case" is made from the Latin, casus which is 
from cado, to fall. But there is nothing about 
these terminations which can be denominated 
falling. Grammarians have generally attempted 
to illustrate the five cases by the following diagram : 




The nominative as well as the vocative has 
been uniformly denominated the straight, the per- 
pendicular, case. These are represented in the 
straight line. The genitive, the dative, and the 
accusative, has been uniformly styled the falling, 
the obliquing, cases. These are represented by 
the three lines which fall off from the nominative, 
or straight line. It really seems that grammarians 
have ever been distinguished by gross absurdity. 
The ancient grammarians started with the idea 
that the genitive, the dative, and the accusative, 
might be considered as falling out of the nomina- 
tive — and, as " casus" means falling, they pre- 
sumed that case could be applied with marked pro- 
priety. But, as the nominative, and vocative, do 
not fall from any thing, how can the word, case, 
be applicable to these ! ? This subject may be ren- 
dered perfectly clear even to the child. From the 
fact that case means a falling, grammarians have 
applied it to the different changes which some 
words undergo in their variation from the primi- 
tives ; as, 

CASE. 

writes, 
writetk. 
writest. 
wrote, 
wrotest. 
writing, 
written. 
These different modifications are called case 



because they are considered to fall from. But 
from what do these cases fall ? from write. 

What is write called ? Write also is a case ! 1 ! 
Well, from what does write fall ? from nothing at 
all!!! 

Write is called the straight, the perpendicular, 
case ! ! That is, write is fall no fall ! I 



CASE. 


CASE. 


write I ! 


writest. 




writes. 




writeth. 




wrote. 




wrotest. 




written. 




writing. 



This illustration, however, gives the old school 
grammarians much more than they are justly 
entitled to. Writest, writes, writeth, &c, are 
really variations, from write. But the fallings to 
which the old school grammarians apply the word, 
case, are fancied into being! This is obvious 
from the following which we have taken from the 
Greek Grammar of Professor Crosby: 

Case is made from casus, from cado, to fall out, 
to happen. 

" From this fancied falling off," says Professor 
Crosby in his Greek Grammar, " came the word, 
case, which was at length applied as a general 
term to all the five variations." 

The reader will observe that Professor Crosby 
calls it a. fancied falling off; and we presume that 
one moment's attention to the subject as presented 
in the following examples, will satisfy the reader 
that the Professor is happy in the selection of the 
epithet, fancied ! 

1. 2. 

1. Trees grow among trees. 

Trees number 1, is in the nominative case. 

Trees, number 2, is the objective case ! 

Does trees, number 2, vary, deviate, from trees, 
number 1 ? Has not trees, number 2 — the same 
letters which constitute trees, number 1 ? Where, 
then, is this falling oft"? In the imagination only ! 
It is surely a fancied falling off! 

The word, case, is not only inappropriate because 
of its inability to express the true idea, but because 
of its absolute want of a technical character. 
" Case" is a word in very common use — and, as it 
is applied to almost every thing in some way, or 
other, it has no technical character whatever. 
Besides, we have no use for the word in grammar. 
The true idea which the old school grammarians 
attempt in vain to express by the word, case, may 
be well denoted by cordictive, and uncordictive, 
nouns. 

We will now give a few of the numerous appli- 
cations of case, which Dr. Bullions, and many 
others, affirm disqualify, a word for technical use. 

1. Book case, Knife case, Watch case. 

2. A printer's case should be in the genitive 
case. 



APPEAL. 



11 



3. " Henry purchased a case of crown glass." 

4. Can you case this hat ? 

That is, cover it with some sort of case which 
will preserve it. 

5. Have you made his case your own? 

6. His case is desperate. 

7. This is clearly a case of the yellow fever. 

8. " My old horse is in a better case than my 
colt." 

9. The lawyer stated the case. 

10. This case will never be tried. 

11. This was an action on the case. 

12. In case he gains his case, will he be in the 
nominative, or vocative case? 

Having shown that case in English is nothing 
but the imagination of the old school grammarians, 
we shall pass on to the next branch of this subject, 
namely, the three cases which these scholars have 
contrived to form from no case ! 

The cases are three, viz. 

1. The nominative, 

2. The possessive, and 

3. The objective. 



CHAPTER III. 

OF THE NOMINATIVE CASE. 

Although we consider the different definitions of 
the nominative case to be much the same, both in 
phraseology, and substance, yet we feel bound to 
examine them all. But before we commence the 
examination, we invite the reader's attention to 
the very particular manner which some have 
adopted to slide over this subject, with as little 
parade as possible ! 

Mr. Murray, in treating of the noun, gives a 
definition of the noun itself, and then divides this 
part of speech into common and proper. In 
treating of number, the same author gives a defini- 
tion of number itself, and then makes the sub- 
division, into singular and plural. When he 
arrives at the gender, he gives a definition of 
gender, and then, adds that there are three genders ; 
namely, masculine, feminine, and neuter. But 
when Mr. Murray comes to case, he gives no 
definition of it whatever ! ! This author introduces 
the subject of number as follows. 

" Section 3. Of Number. 

" Number is the consideration of an object, as 
one or more." 

" Substantives are of two numbers, the singu- 
lar and the plural." 

Now mark the difference, reader — 

" Section 4. Of Case." 

" In English, substantives have three cases, the 
nominative, the possessive, and the objective." 

Here we find Mr. Murray informing the pupil 
how many cases substantives have; yes even 



before he attempts to tell him what case itself is ! ! 
Mr. Murray could find nothing in our language 
which can be denominated, case — hence he has 
made no attempt to define case. 

The next work which \vc shall notice, is a pro- 
duction, entitled, u Elements of English Gram- 
mar, &c. By Austin Osgood Hubbard, A. B." 
This book was published in 1827. The manner 
of treating the subject of case as presented by Mr. 
Hubbard, follows : 



" Cases show the relations of nouns and pronouns 
to other words." 

Mr. Hubbard here attempts to define case — but 
instead of telling what case is, he informs the pupil 
what it does ! ! The subject of case comes before 
Mr. Hubbard in this light — " What is case. ?" But 
Mr. Hubbard evades the question by attempting 
to say, not what case is, but what case does ! 

He continues — 

" The nominative case is the subject of the 
verb ; as, / read, we write." 

But is it this case itself which is the subject of 
the verb ? So declares our author ! If, therefore, 
case is a " showing," and the nominative case is 
the subject of the verb, 1", and we have no allusion 
to persons as is generally thought, but to this 
"showing" of which Mr. Hubbard speaks!! 
Enough of this, however, — we have a question for 
Mr. Hubbard's " patient and accurate research," to 
solve. It is this — " Is the word, * /,' the subject 
of the verb, '■read] or is the person himself the 

SUBJECT ?" 

We have another, — " Is the word, ' we] the 
subject of the verb, 'write,' or are the persons 

THEMSELVES the SUBJECT ?" 

Now, if the word itself is the subject of the verb, 
then, indeed does Mr. Murray's definition of the 
nominative case seem altogether unintelligible ; 
for he says that the " nominative case simply 
expresses the subject of the verb." 

If the word itself is the subject of the verb, then 
Mr. Murray has said in his definition, nothing 
more than this : namely, the nominative case 
simply expresses itself! Or, in other words — the 
noun in the nominative case, simply expresses, or 
signifies itself! To say, then, that "John" is in 
the nominative case, is to assert nothing more than 
that this noun denotes, not the person, but its own 
self!! 

If, however, the real person is the subject of the 
verb, Mr. Murray recovers from insanity ; and Mr. 
Hubbard is struck blind ! Mr. Hubbard says that 
the nominative case is the SUBJECT of the verb : 
and if the real person, or the real thing, is the 
subject of the verb, then, indeed, it follows that 
case belongs not to nouns, and pronouns, but to 
men, women, and children ! ! Thus, we see that 
cases have been shaken off of nouns, and fixed 
upon those persons, things, and animals, that the 



12 



APPEAL. 



nouns represent ! ! According - to Mr. Hubbard, 
the verb may be in America, and its nominative 
case in England ! ! 

Let ns now return to Mr. Murray. This author 
says, that, 

" The verb agrees with its nominative case in 
number and person." 

This rule favors the doctrine of Mr. Hubbard. 
Have we said it ? But, hold — we cannot now say 
what it favors. Let us first examine. Does Mr. 
Murray mean that the verb agrees with the noun 
itself, or with the subject denoted by the noun? 
We think that he intends to say that the verb 
agrees with the noun itself. The noun itself is the 
nominative case ; but the subject of the verb is 
the real person, the real thing, the real animal, 
denoted by the nominative case. 

How does Mr. Comly define case ? 



" Case is a change or difference in the termina- 
tion or situation of a noun or pronoun." 

" Nouns and pronouns have three cases ; the 
nominative, the possessive, and the objective.'''' 

" The nominative case is simply the name of a 
thing, or the state of a noun or pronoun when it 
denotes the subject of a verb; as, /walk." 

In this definition there are two principal things; 
and no one can say upon which the author means 
to rest his definition of this case. First — " the 
nominative case is simply the name of a thing !" 
Secondly — The nominative case is the state of 
a noun or pronoun," when the noun, or the pro- 
noun is the subject of a verb ! ! 

The first reflection which we shall make upon 
this definition of the " nominative case," is that, 
the author's definition of case, in general, destroys 
it. The author in his definition of case, says that, 
case is a change, a difference — yet, in his defini- 
tion of the nominative case, he excludes every 
change, and every difference ! For he declares 
the nominative case to be " simply the name of a 
thing." Now, one would think that as case itself 
consists in changes, and differences, of termina- 
tion, and that as there are different cases, the 
nominative case ought to comprise some one, or 
more of these changes. But, so far from this, we 
are informed, that the nominative case is the mere, 
simple, naked, name ! ! 

second branch of his definition. 

" Or, the state of a noun or pronoun when it is 
the subject of a verb." 

When what is the subject of the verb ? The 
noun or pronoun ! What work this is ! ! First, 
case itself is a change — then the nominative 
case is neither one item more, nor less than the 
hare name — and, after this, the nominative case is 
the state — but, what state ? a very peculiar state, 
indeed — yes the state of a noun which is made the 
subject of a verb. Does not this particular state, 



then, make the nominative case something more 
than a naked name ? Besides the name, the nomina- 
tive includes this state ! ! 

" The nominative case is simply the name of a 
thing, or the state of a noun, or pronoun when it is 
the subject of a verb." John Comly. 

Mr. Comly introduces the word, subject, very 
often, indeed — but has he even attempted to show 
the pupil any kind of distinctive mark by which a 
subject may be known? Will this author, or his 
friends, pretend that this point has the character 
of an axiom ? Or, will they contend that children 
distinguish subjects, from objects by a kind of 
instinct 1 

Let us grant that the subject is the central 
point of conversation, the thing to which the 
attention of the speaker, or writer, is principally 
turned ; that the object is a thing which is taken 
up with a view to help out with the account, 
history or narrative of the subject ; as, the man 
was found ten days ago at Frederick. 

Now, we ask who, or what is the subject in the 
above instance ? Is it the word, " man ?" Or, 
is it the real man, the man himself? We are not 
speaking in the above instance of the noun, man, 
but of the individual himself. The person, then, 
becomes the subject, and not his name ! But the 
word itself may become the subject; as, the word, 
man, has three letters. 

In this instance the noun itself is truly the sub- 
ject. Yet not the subject of the verb — but the 
subject of attention, the subject of thought. We 
have yet to learn that the mere mechanical con- 
nection of a noun with a verb, renders the noun, 
a subject of the verb ! What renders a thing 
a subject ? Is it not the degree of attention 
which is bestowed upon it ? Does the verb set 
about thinking, and reflecting, upon the noun to 
which it may be joined? And when a verb is 
connected with two nouns, does it bestow so much 
thought upon one noun as to render it its subject, 
and so little upon the other as to degrade it to a 
mere object ? 

If so, the difference between a verb's subject, 
and its object, is easily made out! That noun is 
the subject of the verb, upon which the verb 
bestows the highest degree of reflection, or atten- 
tion. That noun is the object of the verb, upon 
which the verb bestows a degree of attention less 
than that which it pays to the subject ! ! 

" The nominative case is simply the name of a 
thing, or the state of a. noun or pronoun when it is 
the subject of a verb." John Comly. 

We would here ask, what state can be pointed 
out which at all times, may be the state of the 
subject ? What constitutes this state ? Is it the 
local condition of the noun, or pronoun ? Cer- 
tainly not '. 

" The nominative case simply expresses the 
name of a thing, or the subject of a verb " 

Murray. 



APPEAL. 



13 



This is much encumbered — the phraseology is 
ambiguous, and the facts upon which it rests, aro 
concealed even from the philosopher. H The sub- 
ject of a verb" is introduced as though the pupil 
is familiarly acquainted with the difference between 
a subject, and an object. " The nominative case 
c expresses' the subject of a verb." 

Ah ! But what, asks the pupil in his own mind, 
is the subject of a verb ? Here is the rub .' ! If 
D. says to B. "An apple tree is a tree which 
bears apples,' 1 '' how will B. know from this, what 
an apple tree is, unless he is also instructed what 
an apple is ? Yes, replies B. — You tell me that 
an apple tree is a tree which bears apples ! But, 
as I do not know what an apple is, your telling is 
to me no instruction I The nominative case ex- 
presses the subject of the verb — but what the sub. 
ject is, will be as difficult for the pupil to find out, 
as it would be to find what the nominative case is 
without any aid from Mr. Murray's Grammar ! 
Has Mr. M. already defined the subject ? — he has 
informed the pupil that the nominative case ex- 
presses the subject, which gives the pupil the 
liberty of inferring that, the subject is not the 
nominative case, but something denoted by this 
case. But. in this, Mr. Murray's simplijiers 
contradict him — for they say that, the nominative 
case is the subject itself! i 

Let us now repeat the definition, and try it in 
practice : 

" The nominative case simply expresses the 
name of a thing, or the subject of a verb;" as, 
Jane, thou wast punished by thy teacher. 

This is not the example by which Mr. Murray 
illustrates his definition — yet the word, Jane, is in 
the nominative case — hence, if his definition is 
correct, this example is as happy an illustration of 
his definition as the instance chosen by himself. 
11 Jane, thou wast punished by thy teacher." 
Jane, in this instance, is parsed by Mr. Mur- 
ray's own grammar, as a noun in the nominative 
case independent of the verb / Observe, it is 
independent of the verb. — Hence this noun cannot 
be in the nominative case upon the principle con- 
tained in the second clause of Mr. Murray's defini- 
tion of the nominative case — 

" Or it expresses the subject of the verb." 
As this noun has no verb, how can it be the 
subject of a verb ! ? How, then, can it be in the 
nominative case ? If this noun is in the nomina- 
tive by any thing which may be found in Mr. 
Murray's definition of this case, it is by the 
authority derived from the first clause in it : — 
" The nominative case simply expresses the name 
of a thing. " 

But the noun, Jane, expresses more than this — 
it signifies the object acted upon ! Yes, this noun 
which is parsed in the nominative case even without 
being described in the definition of this case, most 
happily illustrates the definition which Mr. Mur- 
ray has given of the objective case ! The objective | 



case, says Mr. Murray, " expresses the object of 
an action, or of a relation ;" as, Jane, thou wast 
punished by thy teacher ! 

If we here ask, who was punished — who was 
acted upon, what must the answer be? Surely, 
Jane was acted upon. Let us change the order 
of the sentence — (but not the facts ; we shall retain 
the same facts without the least addition — ) 

" The teacher punished Jane." 

Here, the noun, Jane, is parsed in the objective 
case — Why ? Because it expresses the object 
acted upon. Yet in the first order of this sentence, 
the same word, denoting the same object, is parsed 
in the nominative case. Jane, thou wast punished 
by the teacher ! ! 

The nominative case expresses simply the name 
of a thing, or the subject of "the verb;" as, John, 
dost thou know that / am very sick ! 

The reader has probably asked why this exclama- 
tion point? We answer that we feel a high 
degree of surprise at the fact, that " John," " thou," 
and " I" are all excluded from the very case into 
which the British grammarians intend to put 
them. 

Let us now present the definition of a subject as 
given by the British grammarians : 

"The subject is the thing principally spoken 
o/." Murray. 

We must ask the reader to keep the two follow- 
ing definitions together in his mind : 

1. "The nominative case is the subject." 

2. " The subject is the thing principally spoken 

" John thou wast punished by thy teacher." 
The word, John, is a proper noun, second per- 
son, singular number, and in the nominative case. 
But is John spoken of? John is of the second 
person : and the second person, it will be admitted, 
is the person spoken to ! In what way, we ask, 
is it to be shown that " John!'' is in the nominative 
case ? Let the British grammarians answer — let 
them speak through Mr. Murray — 

The nominative case is the subject; and the 
subject is the thing principally spoken of/ 

But John happens to be the thing spoken to / 
How, then, we beg to be informed, can any 
authority be found for casting this noun into the 
nominative case ? 

Let us now take the word, "thou" 
" John, thou wast punished by thy teacher." 
Thou is a pronoun, second person, singular, and 
in the nominative — but stay ! How can the second 
person be the subject, when the second person is 
the person spoken to, and the subject the person 
spoken of? And, as the second person cannot be 
the subject, how, yes, how can a pronoun of the 
second person be put into the nominative case ! ! ! ? 
The British philologists have shut the door against 
thou, and against every other word of the second 
person, yea, and of the first person also ! ! No, 



14 



APPEAL. 



not even the ghost of a word which is either of the 
second, or first person, can enter their nominative 
case ! ! They have shut the door, and bolted it 
with the following bar .- 

" The subject is the thing spoken of/" And 
"The nominative case is the subject /" 

Having with these definitions, shut, and barred, 
the door against these thousands of words, may 
they not now as well tie up the knocker, and say 
we are sick, we are dead / / 

"Shut, shut the door, good John, tie up the 
knocker ; say I am sick, I am dead." 

Indeed their own Pope, in this sentence, does 
shut their door, and tie up their knocker too, for 
out of the ten nouns which are either expressed, 
or understood three only, can be parsed ! 

Rendered plenary. — Shut thou the door, shut 
thou the door, good John, tie thou up the knocker 
— say thou I am sick, / am dead, 

Now, thou, thou, John, thou, thou, I, and /, are 
excluded from the nominative case, unless indeed 
it can be shown that these words are of the third 
person ! ! But what is the third person ? " The 
third person is the thing spoken of." 

The third person, then, and the subject, are the 
same thing — no word can be parsed in the nomina- 
tive case unless it is of the third person ! ! ! ! 

Let us hear Mr. Ingersoll. Mr. Ingersoll is 
one among the many who have been employed for 
years in the all important business of mending 
Mr. Murray. Mark, gentle reader, the manner 
in which Mr. Ingersoll proceeds to help Mr. 
Murray out of the above dilemma : 

" At present," says Mr. Ingersoll, " I will ex- 
plain to you, only the nominative case : the others 
will be explained hereafter." 

" A noun which denotes an animal, or thing that 
does an action, is in the nominative case;" as, 
Jane, thou wast punished by thy teacher! ?* 

The word, teacher, is a noun, and denotes an 

* Some few years since, we published a small work 
in which we claimed that part of Mr. Ingersoll's 
grammar, which we thought, belonged, of right, to us. 
In this little work, we made some reflections upon 
Mr. Ingersoll's definition of the nominative case. 
Since that period we find that he has made another 
attempt at defining the nominative case. 

It is as follows: — "The nominative case, then, 
denotes the person or thing, of which some affirmation 
is made." 

Now this definition includes no nouns except those 
which happen to stand in the affirmative sentences ; 
as, John is writing letters. 

The moment we change the cordiction of the 
sentence — " Is John writing letters ?" Mr. Ingersoll's 
definition ceases to apply ! Nor will his definition 
apply in even one half of the instances where the 
noun is in the nominative ; as, If he is a good boy, 
&c. 

Now, here is no affirmation ! 

N. B. — We have quoted the above definition from 
memory — but we have the exact sense, if not the exact 
words. 



animal that does an action ; and, consequently, it 
must be in the nominative case ! Strange, indeed, 
that men should thus trifle with themselves, and im- 
pose upon the tender child ! Let us parse the word, 
teacher, as presented in the above illustration of 
Mr. Ingersoll's definition of the nominative case ; 
" Jane, thou wast punished by thy teacher." 

" Teacher," is a common noun, third person, 
singular, and in the objective case after by 1 ! 
In the objective 1 ? What then becomes of Mr. 
Ingersoll, ? He has gone to the place to which 
We will now send Mr. Kirkham. Mr. Kirkham ! 
Who is he ? Who is he ! Let him describe him- 
self! Hear, hear — " The nominative case is the 
actor or subject of the verb;" as, Jane, thou wast 
punished by thy teacher I 

Now, teacher, is a noun in the objective case — 
and, although Jane is a noun in the nominative 
case, yet, it is independent of the verb ! ! We 
find, then, that, although the nominative case 
must be the subject of the verb, words are put into 
the nominative case, which have no verb at all ! 
And we find, also, that, although the nominative 
case is the actor, yet the actor in this instance, is 
not the nominative case, but the objective ! 

Let each man speak for himself. Mr. Kirkham, 
upon the subject of his book, remarks — u It has 
been my object, by clear and familiar illustrations 
to disperse those clouds of obscurity, that are so 
often cast around the young student's bewildered 
imagination, and to smooth his way by removing 
those obstacles that generally retard his pro- 
gress ! !" 

Let teachers examine before they encourage — 
let them know, before they adopt. Let them 
throw off all disguise — let them despise the prin- 
ciple of recommending books upon the ground of 
friendship, of local ties, of pity, &c. Teachers 
stand at the head of the nation — let them honor 
their calling, and make our republic sure. 

Shall we now hear Mr. Greenleaf 's case ? 

" The nominative case is the actor, or subject 
of the verb ;" as, Jane, thou wast punished by thy 
teacher. John, the apples were eaten by me 1 ! 

The nouns, "Jane," and "John," are indepen- 
dent of the verbs ! Hence they cannot be in the 
nominative case upon the ground that they are the 
subjects of the verbs .' ! 

The pronoun, " me," and the noun, " teacher," 
denote the actors — yet these words are in the 
objective case after by ! i It will be sufficient to 
add that Mr. Greenleaf, is one of Mr, Murray's 
menders ! ! 

Cardell's matter and thought grammar, page 54 : 

" POSITION OR CASE." 

"Nouns stand in different relations to other 
words; as, Henry conquered Richard; Richard 
conquered Henry" 

The compiler begins by saying that "nouns 
stand in different relations to other words." He 
then gives two examples in illustration ; and upon 



APPEAL. 



15 



these two examples, he comments in the following 
manner : 

11 The first noun denotes the agent or actor ; and 
the second the object whom the action affects !" 

But, pray does this remark explain the mechanical 
relations which these nouns bear to the verb, 
11 conquered ?" The compiler's remark is not to 
the point in any respect whatever ! Does this 
compiler fancy that in telling what the noun, 
"Henry," denotes, he explains its constructive 
relation to the verb, " conquered ?" " Henry" 
does certainly denote the actor — but what of all 
this ! ! ! The fact that a noun denotes the actor, 
does not settle its relation to the verb ! For, if we 
say, " Richard was conquered by Henry" the 
relation of the noun, "Henry," to the verb, is 
entirely changed ; yet Henry is still the actor ! ! ! 

1. "Henry conquered Richard." 

2. " Richard was conquered by Henry I I" 

So much for the compiler's attempt to explain 
the relations of nouns to verbs, by telling what they 
denote ! I 

The compiler proceeds : 

" The nominative case is the performer of an 
action," as " Richard was conquered by Henry ! .'" 

" Henry," is a proper noun, third person, singu- 
lar, and in the objective case, after by ! Yet, Mr* 
Cardell's definition of the nominative case, forces 
this noun from the objective, and places it in the 
nominative ! ! 

As an illustration of the accuracy of the com- 
piler's definition of the nominative case, he in- 
stances the bull, and boat, which, it is said, were 
once the foundation of a very interesting law 
suit ! The great question was, whether the boat 
was carried off by the bull, or the bull by the 
boat ! Now, says this grave compiler — 
" either it ran away with him, 
or he ran away with it." 

"Whichever did the action of running away 
with the other, is the agent or nominative word ; 
and the one run away with, is the object !" 

Let us now see how the compiler comes out 
with this dignified illustration ! 

i. The boat was carried off by the bull ! 

2. The bull was carried off by the boat .' ! 

From this representation the name of the actor, 
is in the objective case — yes, whether the bull 
carried off the boat ; or whether the boat carried 
off the bull '. ! The compiler's illustration proves 
that bulls may be found in books as well as in 
boats ! ! 

" The nominative case is the performer of an 
action." (Reader keep this in mind.) 

" Whichever did the action, is the agent, or 
nominative word, and the one run away with, is 
the object suffering by the action." (Reader, bear 
this too in mind.) 

Now, says Mr. Cardell, all verbs express action. 
The object, therefore, in this bull, and boat affair, 
is in fact the nominative— the nominative case is 



the performer ! The object is the performer of that 
action which is denoted by the verb, suffers ! 
Hence, the very object, be it either bull or boat, 
is in the nominative!! 

That bulls should run away with boats, and 
boats with bulls, is all reasonable enough ! But 
that Mr. Cardell should so far run away with 
himself, as to run off with J. Horne Tooke, is 
neither reasonable, nor honest ! ! ! 

The learned compiler says, that whichever per. 
forms the. action, is the nominative. Hence, where 
two, or more persons are named, and it is uncer- 
tain which performed the action specified, it is 
impossible to ascertain the nominative word ; as, 
either "John, James, or Stephen, went to church.' 

Now, whichever went "is the performer of the 
action, therefore, the nominative ! !" But which 
did perform this action ? This . point cannot be 
decided — hence, by Mr. CardelVs grammar, neither 
of these nouns can be parsed ! ! 

Again. " Neither John, James, nor Stephen went 
to church !" 

Here there is no action performed — hence, there 
is no performer — and, consequently, there is no 
nominative case to the verb, " went .'.' .'" 

Further. — " The paper is extinct. Nothing came 
into the room." 

Now, the noun, paper, is in the nominative case 
— but does this noun denote the actor, or performer ? 
There is nothing to act — there is no agent in 
being ! ! 

" Nothing came into the room." 

Nothing is the performer ! ! 

Who, it may be asked, is this Mr. Cardeil ? He 
is the man that defines gender to be a difference ! 
He is the compiler of a book made up of antiquated 
errors, obsolete deformities, and of the monumental 
wreck of other men's plans, and schemes ! He is 
the man that presents this book as a mass of 
original miraculous truth ! He is the deeply 
skilled philologist who has given the preceding 
definition of the nominative case — and he is the 
author of the following sentence which is given in 
commendation of that definition: 

" It will be found a very useful practice in schools, 
for pupils to adduce examples for themselves, in 
addition to those which their lessons may contain." 

Can it be that it would be useful for pupils to 
give examples adapted to Mr. Cardell's defini- 
tion of the nominative case ? Yet, the sentence 
in question, has a direct allusion to that definition ! 
Yes, the examples adduced, are to be tried by his 
inconsistent attempt at a definition of the nomina- 
tive case ! We fancy that he would recommend 
them to draw their examples from bulls, and 
boats ! " This (continues he) will not only show 
their knowledge of the subject, but by exercising 
their inventive faculties, will increase their interest 
for ulterior progress." 

What will exercise their inventive faculties? 



16 



APPEAL. 



Why, to adduce examples of the nominative case 
— but by what rule ? By this — 

" The nominative case denotes the performer 
of an action ; as, the boat was carried off by the 
bull I ."' 

" Will increase their interest for ulterior pro- 
gress." 

What will increase their interest? Why, to 
find such a consistency between Mr. Cardell's 
definition of the nominative case, and the examples 
adduced ! ! 

We should take our leave for the present, of 
Mr. Cardell, was it not that he has severely 
impugned all the literary men who preceded him- 
self upon this science. And, indeed, had Mr. 
Cardell corrected, even one of the ten thousand 
errors which deform the old system of English 
grammar, we should have passed him by in silence, 
and pity. But as he has lampooned the learned 
men of all nations, without correcting, or finding, 
even one of their numerous errors, we feel bound 
to speak of him in such terms as will render him 
a better scholar, and a better man .' 

In the Introduction, we have attempted to 
show that Mr. Cardell, is altogether incapable of 
writing our language with propriety. And believing 
ourselves successful in that attempt, we do not 
make any additional strictures upon his language 
for the reader's satisfaction, but for Mr. Cardell's 
instruction. We shall now repeat the sentence 
which we quoted above ; and we ask attention to 
the italic words : 

" It will be found a very useful practice, in 
schools, for pupils to adduce exam pies for themselves, 
in addition to those which their lessons may 
contain" 

The word, "adduce," signifies to add — hence, 
the sentence in sense, is as follows : 

It will be found a very useful practice in 
schools for pupils to add examples for themselves 
in addition to those which their lessons may 
contain. (To add in addition ,') 

" In schools," is redundant ; and, as the sentence 
should end at themselves, the syllabane, " in addi- 
tion to those which their lessons may contain," 
is useless. 

It will be found a useful practice for pupils to 
adduce examples for themselves. 

The sentence in its original form, comprises 26 
words. But in its improved form, it contains only 
13, which shows a redundancy of 13 words ! 

To this sentence the compiler subjoins the fol- 
lowing : 

" This will not only show their knowledge of the 
subject, but by exercising their inventive faculties, 
will increase their interest for ulterior progress." 

" Interest for" is not English ! We say interest 
in but desire for. 

In idea, however, both sentences are a unit — 
hence it should be expressed in one sentence. 



A substitute for both. 

That the pupil may show his own knowledge of 
this subject, and be somewhat instrumental in 
adding to it, he should adduce instances of the 
nominative case, for himself. (59 words.) 

Before we close this chapter, we deem it some- 
what important to show in what way Peter 
Bullions, and Goold Brown have, mended Mur- 
ray upon the subject of the cases. 

To do these compilers justice, it is necessary to 
give the reader their respective definitions of case 
itself. 

" II. Of the Case of Nouns." 

Case is the state, or condition, of a noun with 
respect to other words in a sentence ! ! P. Bul- 
lions. 

Let us suppose that A., of Boston, attempts, in a 
letter, to describe his state or condition to his 
friends in Philadelphia. His friends receive his 
letter, dated, Boston, June, 2, 1844. 

The letter, which is long, is read with great 
care by his Philadelphia friends. But all they 
can glean from it, which relates to A.'s condition, 
is the following sentence : 

" The condition of your friend A., is the state 
of a man with respect to the other persons in 
Boston I !" 

The case of a noun is its condition with respect 
to the other words in a sentence ! 

This definition affords about as much light as a 
piece of chalk in a dark room. 

Even if the child could ascertain what the con- 
dition of a noun is with respect to the other 
words in the sentence, he would be wonderfully 
enlightened upon the subject of case ! 

" Case is the state, or condition, of a noun with 
respect to the other words in a sentence." 

It seems, then, that a noun is in a particular 
case with respect to all the other words in the 
sentence ! ! To the other words in a sentence. 

" Truth and candor possesses a powerful charm" 
(Bullions, p. 73.) 

Truth is a noun in the nominative case with 
respect to and, to candor, to possess, to a, to 
powerful, and to charm .' ! ! 

Under page 73, Mr. Bullions parses this sen- 
tence. In his solution we find the noun, truth, 
disposed of in the following way : 

" Truth," "A noun, neuter, singular, the nomina' 
tive," 

That is, truth is the nominative to and, to candor, 
to possess, to a, to powerful, and to charm ! If 
this is not so what does this definition of case 
mean : 

" Case is the state, or condition, of a noun with 
respect to the other words in a sentence." 

Nouns have three cases, viz. — the nominative, 
possessive and objective. 

1. " The nominative case expresses that of 



APPEAL. 



17 



which something is said or declared;" as, John, 
thou wast punished by thy teacher. 

Nothing is here said of John — hence Ins name 
is not in the nominative case by virtue of this de- 
finition of the nominative. John is a proper noun, 
of the second person — and, as the second person is 
not the spoken of but to, how can "John" or 
" thou" be in the nominative I ? 

The nominative case expresses that of which 
something is said, or declared. 

Nothing is said of John — nothing is said of 
thou I ! Yet, strange as it may, indeed as it must, 
seem, these two words are the only ones which are 
parsed in the nominative case !!!!!! 

" Teacher" is of the third person — and, as the 
third person is the one of which something is said, 
"teacher" which is in the objective case, and 
governed by by, is the only word which can be 
parsed in the nominative by virtue of Mr. Bullion'' s 
definition of this case! 

Mr. Bullions hhnself says the teacher is the 
only person mentioned in the sentence of whom 
any thing is said ! He himself parses John, and 
thou, of the second person — by this, he declares 
that nothing is said of them ! He parses teacher, 
as of the third person — by this he declares that 
something is said of the teacher ! Book II, p. 
xi.) 

Case, says Mr. Bullions, is "state, or condi- 
tion." The nominative case of a noun, then, is 
the nominative condition of it ! 

And, as the nominative case expresses that thing 
of which something is said, it follows that the 
thing of which something is said, is expressed, not 
by the noun, but by the nominative condition of 
the noun ! i I Hence in the following sentence the 
thing of which we speak, is not expressed, denoted, 
by the word, booh, but by the nominative condition 
of the word, book ! ! 

The book is new. 
This certainly does improve Murray ! 
" The nominative case expresses that of which 
something is said, or declared j" as, the rock was 
smitten by Moses. 

Is it not here declared of Moses that he smote 
the rock ! ? Is not this proper noun ' which Mr. 
Bullions parses in the objective case, actually in 
die nominative case ! ! ? 

Is it not as clearly said of Moses that he smote 
the rock, as it is of the rock, that it was smitten ? 
Can we be told that the nouns in the following 
instances, in italic characters, denote beings of 
which nothing k said ? If nothing is said of them, 
how can their names be of the third person • ? 
(The third person is spoken of.) 

1. " The world is sustained by God." 

2. " His son was taught by Jacob." 

3. The fire was extinguished by John. 

4. The horse was stolen by Joseph." 

Let us now hear what Mr. Goold Brown says 
of the nominative case. 
"The nominative case is that form or state of a 



noun or a pronoun, which denotes the subject of a 
verb, as, 'John, go to school.' " 

Appended to Mr. Brown's Grammar, is a KEY 
which we have perused with great care to enable 
us to ascertain what is meant by this definition. 
But, to us, this definition is still under lock and 
key ! the key which he furnishes, does not suit 
the lock, which prevents us from opening this 
mysterious verbal box ! 

" The nominative case is that form or state." 

Are the words, form, and state, as here used, 
synonymous? Do both words, as here used, 
mean the same thing ? 

From the definition which Mr. Brown gives of 
case itself, we infer that he intends to use form 
and state, as meaning the same thing. 



" Cases are modifications that distinguish the 
relations of nouns and pronouns to other words." 
Goold Brown. 

" As " state" is not used in this definition, we 
conclude that it is used in the other, merely to 
improve the euphony of the sentence ! 

" Cases are modifications which distinguish the 
relations of nouns and pronouns to other words." 

What are the relations which nouns, and pro- 
nouns bear to other words, which the case modiji. 
cations " distinguish ?" If case, in general, is a 
modification which expresses the different relations 
that nouns and pronouns bear to other words, 
the nominative case must express one, or more, of 
those relations. But does Mr. Brown, even men- 
tion the word, relation, in his definition of the 
nominative case ! ? Does he even use a word in 
this definition, which conveys the least allusion 
to a relation of nouns, and pronouns, to other 
words ? 

" The nominative case is the form or state of a 
noun which denotes the subject of a verb." 

Does the word, subject, convey any allusion to a 
relation of one word to another ! ? The word, 
subject, alludes to the object, or thing on which 
the mind acts. 

"Subject, — that on which some mental oi 
material operation, is performed." Johnson. 

What says Murray ? " The subject is the thing 
principally spoken of." 

Why has not Mr. Brown told what this relation 
is of which he speaks in his definition of case ? 
Simply, because he does not know what it is ! 1 

If cases are modifications of nouns, and pro- 
nouns, why does not Mr. Brown tell us what 
modification constitutes the nominative case ! ? 
Simply, because there is no modification which 
constitutes this case '. 

What is it which denotes the subject of the 
verb ? The definition of the nominative case, as 
given by Mr. Brown, does not answer this ques- 
tion: 

" The nominative case is the form or state of a 



18 



APPEAL. 



noun or pronoun, which denotes the subject of a 
verb." 

Does "which" represent/orra or slute, or noun, or 
pronoun ? No one can decide from the sentence ! 

We will now give some attention to an illustra- 
tion of this definition of the nominative case. 

Boys, you were punished by the teacher. 

Has the word, boys, a form which enables it 
to denote the subject ? Has the word, boys, a 
state which enables it to denote the subject? 

" The nominative case is the form or state of a 
noun or pronoun, which denotes the subject of a 
verb ; as, Boys, you were punished by the teacher." 

How can the word, boys, denote the subject of 
a verb, when it is absolutely independent of all 
verbs ! ? 

Again — as the subject is the thing principally 
spoken of, how can boys be parsed in the nomina- 
tive case ! ? This noun does not denote what is 
spoken of, but what is spoken to. Boys is a noun 
of the second person ! 

" You" is a pronoun — but has no form which is 
peculiar to it when it denotes the subject — " you" 
has the same form in the objective, which it has 
in the nominative : you were punished. Here 
"you" is nominative. "Of you." Here "you" is 
objective .' 

With respect to state, we have already demon- 
strated that it is a mere bubble! 

Does " you" denote the subject ! ? How, then, 
can " you" be of the second person ! ? The sub- 
ject is the object spoken of. " You" denotes the 
person spoken to ! '. How, therefore, can you be 
in the nominative case by virtue of the definition 
which follows : 

u The nominative case is the form or state of a 
noun or pronoun, which denotes the subject of a 
verb." Goold Brown's "finished labours ! 1 " 

If the nominative case denotes the subject, and 
the subject is the thing spoken of, how can any 
word of the first or the second person, be in the 
nominative case ! ? 

1. "I was at school in London." 

2. " We will call on them soon." 

3. [" i" {who am now reading,) understand this 
matter !"] 

If/, we, and who, are not of third person, they 
can not be subjects — and, if not subjects, they are 
not in the nominative case ! 

The third person, and the subject are defined in 
the same way ! The third person is the thing 
spoken of ; and a subject is the thing spoken of. 
But these pronouns I, we, who, denote the 
speakers — hence, they are of the first person — and, 
consequently, they can not denote subject; and, 
as they do not denote subjects, they can not be in 
the nominative case ! 

"John is a boy of truth." 

John is a name in the name case to is ! Or — ■ 

John is a noun, in the noun case to is / Or, — ■ 

John is a sign, in the sign case to is ! Or, — 

John is a nominative, in the nominative case 
to is ! 

As sign, name, noun, and nominative, mean the 
same thing, either of these methods of parsing, i3 
synonomous with the following : 

John is a noun, in the nominative case to is. 

Let us now enquire what is meant by the 
words, '* nominative case to is ?" 

John is in the nominative case to is ! 



When we say, John went to the door, we under- 
stand the import of to. But when we say that the 
word, John, is in the nominative case to " is," we 
speak of something of which we know nothing ! 

Before we pursue this point farther, it may be 
well to devote a few minutes to the words, " in the 
nominative case after is." 

" John is a boy of truth." 

Boy is a noun in the nominative case after is. 

Is the word, after, employed to express any 
nominative relation which the word, boy, bears to 
is ? Or, is after used to denote the j^sition of 
boy in reference to is. That boy comes after is, 
is obvious. But if after is employed merely to 
express the place of boy in reference to is, why 
not use before to express the place of John in 
reference to is I ? 

" John is a buy of truth." 

John is a noun in the nominative case before is. 

Boy is a noun in the nominative case after is. 

But, no, John is in the nominative case to is — 
and boy, in the nominative case after is ! ! Recon- 
cile this method with good sense if you can ! 

" Is it they." 

It, is a pronoun, in the nominative case to is. 

They is a pronoun, in the nominative case 
after is ! ! 

When it is said that "they" is in the nomina- 
tive case, is it not meant that it is in the nomina- 
tive case in relation to some verb ? Or is this 
pronoun in the nominative case independent of all 
verbs ! ? The old school grammarians do not pre- 
tend that they is in the nominative case indepen. 
dent of all verbs. In relation, then, to what verb 
is they in the nominative case ? Is this pronoun 
in the nominative case to is ! ? Is they, is not 
English ! Nor is, they is English • What ! Can 
a pronoun be in the nominative case to a verb 
when at the same time the putting of the pronoun 
with the verb, produces a gross infraction of the 
rules of grammar ! ! 

[" It is] (they.") 

1. What is the meaning of, in the nominative 
to is I ? 

2. What is the meaning of, in the nominative 
case after is I ? 

" John is a boy of truth." 

Is the word John, nominative in relation to is !? 
Surely not — the word, John, is nominative in rela- 
tion to the person himself. "John" is the name 
of the real person ! This word, then, is in the 
nominative case in relation to the person — and not 
in relation to the verb, is '. Is is the subject I ? 
No, no ! 

If the nominative case is the mere name of the 
subject, and if John is the subject, is not the 
word, the name, the sign, John, nominative in 
relation to John himself! ? Preposterous ! John 
bear a name, a noun, a nominative, relation to is 1 
Then of course "John" is the name of is ! / 

"John is a boy of truth." 

John, a noun, in the nominative case to John 
himself 

If the nominative case is the name of the sub- 
ject, this is the only rational parsing which can 
be given. We deny that a noun bears a nomina- 
tive relation to the verb. The noun bears a 
nominative relation to the subject, to the object, to 
the thing of which it is the name, and to nothing 
else! 



APPEAL. 



19 



CHAPTER IV. 



THE POSSESSIVE CASE. 



We intend to dispose of this case in a very sum- 
mary way. 

The termination which is called the possessive 
case, is a mere adjective affix and, as such, it con- 
verts the noun to which it is affixed into an adjec- 
tive ; as, 

1. "He brought Jane's book, and her paper." 

2. " Goold Brown's definitions are unsound." 

3. "Peter Bullion's Latin Grammar." 

As, al, ic, iv, ous, ine, &c, are affixes which 
translate nouns into adjectives, so are the affixes 
which are called the possessive case, suffixes that 
convert nouns into adjectives. 

NOUNS. ADJECTIVES. 

1. Mode modaZ. al. 

2. Jane Jane's, 's. 

3. Virtue virtuous, ous. 

4. Philosophy philosophic, ic. 
The pronouns which are supplemental to the 

nouns in the possessive case, are called adjectives, 
or adjective pronouns : 

" John saw her with his book." 

To his, the old theory applies the word, adjec- 
tive. 

But is his any thing more, or less than John's ? 

John saw her with John's book. 

If his, the true representative of John's, can be 
called an adjective, can not John's be styled an 
adjective also ? 

It is said that there are four sorts of adjective 
pronouns, viz. the possessive, distributive, demon- 
strative, and indefinite. The possessive adjective 
pronouns are, my, thy, his, her, our, your, their, 
its, own." (Bullions's Grammar, p. 26.) 

But what is the possessive case ? 

Mr. Bullions says, that 

" The possessive case denotes that to which 
something belongs ; as," 

1. The fan of the lady! 

2. The hat of John! 

The nouns, lady, and John, are in the possessive 
case, governed by the preposition, of! ! ! ! 

" Truth and candor possess a powerful charm." 

" Truth," a common noun, third person, singular, 
in the possessive case ! ! ■ 

" Candor," a noun, of the third person, singular, 
in the possessive case ! ! 

Under the thirty-ninth page of Bullions's Eng- 
lish Grammar, we find the above sentence. 

Under the same page we find truth, and candor, 
parsed in the nominative case. But, if the possess- 
ive case is what Mr. Bullions defines it to be, who 
can not see that truth, and candor demand that 
we put truth, and " candor" into the possessive 
case ! ! ? 



The possessive case, says Mr. Bullions, denotes 
that to which something belongs. 

" Truth and candor possess powerful charms." 

Does not a powerful charm belong to truth, and 
candor ? Are not truth, and candor, then, in the 
possesssive case ! ! ! ? 

Every noun as well as every pronoun in italic 
characters, in the following sentences, is in the 
possessive case. 

1. /have a book. 

2. "This is the knife of Samuel ." 

3. " A portrait of the king is here." 

4. He is a man of much property. 

5. Have you boy's hats for sale ? 

As the boys are not spoken of as possessing hats, 
the word, boys, does not denote any thing to which 
something belongs. But, as the persons, called 
you, are spoken to as having hats, " you" is in the 
possessive case ! ! What work, what work, what 
work ! Oh ! these Murray menders ! ! 
Kirkham, under page 48, says that 
"The possessive case denotes the possessor of 
something ! ! " 

1. /have a book! ! ! 

2. John is the owner of a book ! ! 

3. This is the house of Stephen ! 

Under page 41, this same Mr. Kirkham says, 

" Now Jive grains of common sense" will enable 
any one to comprehend what is meant by case ! ! 

In a work entitled, Book Instructor, designed to 
TEACH the science of English Grammar without 
a TEACHER, we find the following definition of 
the possessive case : 

" The possessive case denotes the possessor or 
owner of property j ! " 

1. " Durand has a horse ! " 

2. " Davidson owns a house ? 

3. This is the land of James / 

4. This is the book of Sarah ! 

5. J have a pen ! 

2. Thou hast an inkstand ! 

We must congratulate Mr. Ells upon his re- 
markable success in this attempt to give a defini- 
tion of the possessive case ! 

Under page 26, Goold Brown says, 

The possessive case is that form, or state of a 
noun or pronoun, which denotes the relation of 
property ; as, boy's hats, my hat. Goold Brown. 

Let us see with what ease this definition can be 
applied to the following : 

2. John's uncle ! 

2. Nancy's friend ! 

Is the uncle the property of John ! ! ? Is the 
friend the property of Nancy ! ! ! ? 

" Henry has boys' hats for sale." 

Is it to be presumed that these hats which be- 
long to Henry are the property of the boys ! ! ? 

" How the definition vanishes before the test ! ! 

But is this relation of property mentioned in 
Brown's definition of the possessive case, the same 
relation to which he refers in his definition of case 



20 



APPEAL. 



itself! ! ? In his definition of case itself he speaks 
of a relation of nouns, and pronouns to other 
words I But in his definition of the possessive 
case, he says nothing- of this sort of relation ! ! 
The relation of nouns, and pronouns.to other words, 
must be very different from the relation of property 
to its owner ! ! 

" CASES." 

" Cases, are modifications that distinguish the 
relation of nouns and pronouns to other words ! 
Goold Brown. 

The possessive case is that form or state of a 
noun or pronoun, which denotes the relation of 
property ; as " boy's hat, my hat." 

Now, as the boy is not the property, but the 
proprietor, would not Mr. Brown's definition be 
much improved by the substitution of proprietor 
for property ? 

The possessive case is that form, or state of a 
noun or pronoun, which denotes the relation of 
proprietor ; as, John's book ! 

But we will call the attention of the reader once 
more to the obvious difference between the two re- 
lations of which Mr Brown speaks, and close our 
reflections upon his wonderful definition of the 
cases. 

The relation of which he speaks in his definition 
of case itself, is that of nouns and pronouns, to 
other words. But the relation of which he speaks 
in his definition of the possessive, case is that 
which exists between the proprietor and his pro- 
perty ! 1 1 1 The definition of case itself, is Mr. 
Brown's guide — it is his constitutional definition, 
out of which he can not travel without subjecting 
himself to the charge of inconsistency. Has he 
founded his definition of the possessive case upon 
the relation of nouns, and pronouns, to other 
words ? No, no ! He has built this definition, 
not upon the relation of nouns and pronouns to 
other words, but upon the relation which a house 
and lot, a horse and wagon, a hat and book, bear 
to him who happens to be the proprietor of 
them ! ! ! The relation of property 1 1 

But the definition is false in theory, and false in 
practice : 

1. Jane's uncle ! 

2. Sarah's friend ! 

3. Have you boys' hats for sale ! ? 

Here " you" the nominative is the possessive ! 
Are not the hats spoken of as the property of 
you ! ? 

And how is the word, boys', parsed ? In the 
possessive case ! But are the hats spoken of as 
the property of the boys ! ? Nothing like it ! The 
hats are the property of you ! The hats, then, 
bear the relation of property to the nominative 
case ! ! ! ! 

Has Mr. Brown founded his definition of the 



nominative case upon the relation of which he 
speaks in his definition of case itself? No, no. — He 
has founded his definition, not upon a relation of 
nouns and pronouns to other words, but upon the 
relation which the real object, the real thing, bears 
to the mind of the speaker, or writer — he founds 
it upon the subject ! 

Under the first page of the -Preface to Mr. 
Brown's Grammar, we find the following, which 
we submit without comment : 

"To embody, in a convenient form, the true 
principles of the English Language, and to ex- 
press them in a simple and perspicuous style, 
adapted to the capacity of youth, are the objects 
of the following work •" 

Let us now hear what Mr. Murray says on the 
possessive case. 

The possessive case expresses the relation of 
property or possession ; and has an apostrophe 
with the letter s following it; as, the scholar's 
duty, my father's house. — Murray. 

" And has an apostrophe with the letter s, fol- 
lowing it." 

What has an apostrophe with the letter, s ? the 
possessive case ! 

" The possessive case expresses the relation of 
property or possession; and has an apostrophe 
with the letter, s, following it." 

Following what ? following the possessive case ? 
The pronoun, it, stands for " possessive case." 

"The possessive case has an apostrophe with the 
letter, s, following it ; as, the scholar's duty." 

As the apostrophe, and s are the possessive case, 
where is the propriety of saying that the possess- 
ive case is followed by an " apostrophe, and s .' ?" 

According to Mr. Murray, the possessive case 
of scholar, is this — 's's ! Scholar's'* duty ! J 
" The scholar's duty." 

Does this expression convey an allusion to the 
relation of property? Is a man's duty his pro- 
perty ! ? 

" The possessive case expresses the relation of 
property or possession ; as, the scholar's duty. 

The scholar, then, is the owner, the proprietor, 
of this duty ! ! ! We do not believe any such idea 
is intended by the language used. 

The truth is that scholar is thrown into an ad- 
jective form to express a distinction which could 
not be made in any other way with as much 
brevity. 

" Get John's horse." 

John is rendered an adjective to express what 
horse. But the old school grammarians say that 
John is rendered an adjective to express that John 
is the owner, the possessor^ of the horse '. This, 
however, is not so. 

1. Call at Mr. Brown's drug store, and get a 
bottle of Swaim's panacea." 

Is it here expressed that this panacea is the 
property of Swaim ! ? Nothing like it. 



APPEAL. 



21 



2. " I have one of Rogers's knives." 

Is it here expressed that Rogers is the owner of 
these knives ! ? 

3. " We eat baker's bread altogether." 

Does this mean that the bread which we eat, is 
the property of the baker ! ? 

4. " Get a copy of Murray's Grammar." 
Does this mean that Murray is the owner of this 

book ! ? 

5. " Lea's pills are a good medicine." 

Does this import that Lea is the owner of these 
pills, or, does it mean that he is the maker, invent- 
or, of them? 

6. " John has boys' hats for sale." 

The hats belong not to the boys, but to John ! 
Yet boys is in the case which the old school gram- 
marians say expresses the relation of property, 
possession ! 1 

7. " They read all David's psalms." 

Is David here represented as the owner, or as 
the author, of the psalms ! ? 

8. " Joseph lives with John's friend." 

What ! Is the friend with whom Joseph lives, 
the property of John ! ! ? 

9. " We followed John's directions." 

Is it here meant that these directions are the 
property of John, or that they come from him ! ? 

10. "The wind's music was sweet." 

Is it here meant that the wind is the owner, the 
author, or the maker, of the music ! ? 

11. " Earth's productions are numerous." 

Is it here meant that the earth is the proprietor, 
owner, or giver of these productions ! ? 

12. " The trunk's branches were small." 
What is the true idea here ? Is it that the trunk 

is the mere owner of the branches ? Or is it that 
the trunk is the author, the giver, of the branches ? 
Can branches which are engrafted into the trunk, 
be said to be the trunk's branches ? The branches 
which are merely engrafted into the trunk, are 
not the trunk's branches. 

Where a child bears the relation of adoption to 
Mr. Webster, can it be said to be Mr. Webster's 
child ! ? 

" Mr. Webster's child," means a child of which 
Mr. Webster is the father. 

13. " Webster's son." 

Here, Webster's is parsed in the possessive case. 
This, however, is a misnomer : the true case of 
this noun is no case. And the true relation of 
Webster to the son, is clearly expressed by parent, 
origin, source. li Webster's," then, is a noun in 
the source deflection, the origin form, the parent 
modification. 

Significant technicals are well calculated to ex- 
pose error in false theories. The word, possessive, 
is almost the only technical, in the old theory,which 
has any meaning. Hence, in general, it requires 
great care to demonstrate the errors which pervade, 
and deform it But where there is a technical which 



is expressive of a distinct idea, a very short cross 
examination will expose the work of error, even to 
the mere child. 

"The 2 1Q ssessive case expresses the relation of 
property or possession." 

1. Murray's Grammar ! 

2. Baker's Bread. 

3. Webster's son. 

4. John's friend. 

5. Goodness' sake. 

6. John has boys' hats for sale. 

The relations between the things expressed by 
nouns in the possessive case, and the noun on 
which this possessive noun depends, are too numer- 
ous to be comprehended by even a hundred dis- 
tinctive names. That the relation of property 
may exist is admitted. But these relations have 
nothing to do with grammar — hence grammars 
should have nothing to do with them. Gram- 
mar is a science which treats of the relation 
of words. Metaphysics is a science which treats 
of the relation of things. Let the grammarian, 
then, abandon metaphysics, and give the relation, 
not of the real horses, real oxen, real men, and 
real children, but of the words which denote these 
real beings ! 

A remarkable book in the form of an English 
Grammar, has recently appeared under the fol- 
lowing imposing title : 

" An improved Grammar of the English Lan- 
guage, on the Inductive system; by Reverend 
Bradford Frazee, late principal of Washington 
Female Academy, Washington, Miss." 

Under page 26, we find the following definition 
of the possessive case : 

" The possessive case denotes ownership ;" as, 

1. Baker's bread is not so cheap as domestic. 
Does not baker's indicate the kind of bread ! ? 

Does the word, baker's, denote ownership ! ? 

2. Brewer's yeast is better than baker's yeast. 
Do brewer's, and baker's express ownership 1 ? — 

or do they express the kinds of yeast! ? 

3. He studies Bradford Frazee's Grammar. 
Do we here mean that Bradford Frazee is the 

owner of this book ! ? Nothing like it. 

4. " John's friend was shot, and burnt, for the 
crime of desertion." 

What does John own ! ? Does he possess the 
annihilated friend ! ? 

5. " James saw John's friend." 

Is this friend the property of John ! ? If not, 
where is the ownership 1 1 

Under page 25, Mr. Frazee gives the following 
definition of case itself: 



Case means the position of the name in the sen- 
tence with respect to other words. 

But is this principle found in the following defi- 
nition of the possessive case ? 



22 



APPEAL. 



" The possessive case denotes ownership ."' 

What a vast difference there is between position, 
place, and ownership ! 1 ! 

As case signifies place, position, and as the pos- 
sessive case is involved in the idea of case, why 
not define the possessive case by a description of 
its position .' ? 

In the title page, Mr. Frazee styles his work an 
improved Grammar of the English Language ! 
And in his Preface, he virtually adopts the follow- 
ing language — 

" I am the door, by me if any man enter in, he 
is saved from his grammatical sins — he shall go in 
and out, and find pasture ! /" Yes, if that which 
has been masticated, chewed, almost to annihila- 
tion, is pasture, he will find pasture enough ! ! 
But, if he does not meet with a little stubble in 
going in, and out, we shall conclude that he has 
neither eyes, nor palate .' .' 

[We have examined several English Grammars 
of more recent publication than those on whose 
definitions of the possessive case we have here 
commented. But as they contain nothing new, 
we can not consent to make them the subject of 
additional reflections. Chandler, Welds, &c, &c, 
are mere copyists.] 



CHAPTER V. 

OF THE OBJECTIVE CASE. 

We shall commence this chapter by giving Mr. 
Murray on the objective case. After having 
given his definition of this case, and made some 
few comments upon it, we shall examine the defi- 
nitions which they who have been laboring to 
simplify his works, have given of the same case. 

" The objective case expresses the object of an 
action or of a relation;" as, Jane, thou wast 
punished by thy teacher, in the school house ! ! 

The word, Jane, is a proper noun, second per- 
son singular — and in what case? "Jane" is in 
the nominative case ! Who was punished ? Jane 
was punished. Was not Jane, then, the object 
acted upon ? Yes. This noun,- therefore, must 
be in the objective case. By what rule ? Why by 
the clearest rule possible — the very definition of 
the objective case ! Can any one say that this 
noun is in the objective case ! ? Surely it is not in 
the possessive — nor is it in the nominative : for it 
is neither the subject of a verb, nor the actor ! 
Why not the subject of a verb ? Because it is 
independent of the verb. " When an address is 
made, the noun is in the nominative case inde- 
pendent." 

The word, thou, is a pronoun, second person, 
singular, and in the nominative case to wast pun- 
ished. Yet this pronoun expresses the object acted 
upon ! Who was punished ? Thou wast punished. 



How, then, can this pronoun be in the nominative 
case ? " Easily enough," says Mr. Ingersoll ! 
" The nominative case is that word which denotes 
the animal, or the thing, which does an action ! !" 

w Ah ! and does the pronoun, thou, denote an 
animal that does an action ? Or does this pronoun 
denote an animal to whom an action is done ? 

What is Mr. Ingersoll's definition of the object- 
ive case ? 

" The objective case," says Mr. Ingersoll, " de- 
notes the object of an action ; as, Caroline broke 
the glass." 

Here the action is done by Caroline, and to the 
glass. The word, glass, is presented by Mr. Inger- 
soll as the objective case. How is it in the instance 
before us. Thou denotes the person to whom 
the action is done ; and by Mr. Murray, as well 
as by Mr. Ingersoll, is a pronoun in the objective 
case ! But this pronoun, the same word, is in the 
objective, and in the nominative at the same time ! ! 
Thou expresses the object of an action; — hence in 
the objective — thou, is parsed in the nominative ! 
So it is — and it cannot be helped ! ! 
• Let us now repeat the definition : 

" The objective case expresses the object of an 
action or of a relation ; as, Jane, thou wast pun- 
ished by thy teacher, in the school house." 

The word, teacher, is a common noun, third 
person, singular, and in the objective case after by. 
Yet the word, teacher, denotes the very actor him- 
self! But what is the objective case ? " The ob- 
jective case expresses the object of an action." 
How, how, then, we beg to be informed, can the 
noun which expresses, not the object, but the very 
actor himself, be parsed in the objective case ? 
The word, teacher, is Mr. Ingersoll's, Mr. Green- 
leaf's Mr. Kirkham's, and Mr. Cardell's, nomina- 
tive case is the actor ! ! Mr. Murray, however, 
says, 

" The nominative case simply expresses the 
name of a thing, or the subject of a verb." 

Mr. Murray, and all his simplifiers, are grossly 
absurd. 

If the nominative case is the actor, then, indeed, 
the nominative case, in the example before us, is 
the objective case ! Nor are constructions of this 
description, rare ; our language abounds with 
them. 

" Jane, thou wast punished by thy teacher in the 
school house." 

Mr. Murray's definition of the objective case 
seems not to describe the character of the word, 
teacher. Yet this noun is not entirely lost — for the 
simplifiers, and the cloud-dispersers of Mr. Mur- 
ray's grammar, have caught, most happily caught, 
this objective case in their definition of the nomina- 
tive ! ! They intend their definition for the nom. 
inative case — but, as it seems not to suit the 
nominative, let it not be lost, let it be applied to the 
objective case ! ! 

We now come to the word, house, which is a 



APPEAL. 



23 



common noun, third person, singular, and in the 
objective case, governed by the preposition, in. 

House is not the object of an action : hence, if 
it is in the objective case by virtue of Mr. Mur- 
ray's definition of this case, it comes under the 
last clause — 

" The object of a relation." 

There is a relation between Jane, and the house : 
for June, as says the sentence, was in the house. 

" Jane, thou wast punished by thy teacher in the 
school house." Or, Jane, thou, in the school house, 
wast punished by thy teacher. 

The preposition, in, shows the relation which 
exists between the real house, and the real person. 
And the word, house, is put into the objective 
case — because of what ? because of this relation. 
Now, was the house nearer to Jane than she 
was to the house ? Surely Jane being as near the 
house, as the house was to her, the noun, Jane, 
ought also to be put into the objective case on ac- 
count of this curiously objective relation ! Yes — 
before Mr. Murray put the noun, house, into the 
objective, because of this relation, he should have 
found the extent of the principle. The thing 
which partakes of the relation to the higher, or 
highest degree, ought to be considered the object 
of the relation. But, if you examine, you will find 
that the things which are related, ever partake of 
the relation existing between them, in an equal 
degree! If James is my brother, I am his brother. 
But, if James could be my brother, and I bear no 
relation to him, Mr. Murray's principle might an- 
swer. Yes, if it could be proved that the ear has 
no relation with the head, then, indeed, the head 
n^g-lit be considered as the object of the relation 
wmich it bears to the ear, without taking the ear 
into the account. But, as it is, if we say, " the 
ear is on the head," it is absurd to view the head 
as the only object of this relation. The ear is as 
near to the head as the head is to the ear. If, 
therefore, in parsing the following instance, the 
word, head, is parsed in the objective on account 
of the relation, we contend that the word, ear, also 
should be parsed in the objective : 

" The ear is on the head." 

Ear is in the nominative case — but head is the 
object of a relation, hence in the objective case ! ! 

Let us now attend to the instructions of Mr. 
Comly upon the object — 

" The objective case is the state of a noun, or 
pronoun when it is the object of a verb, or prepo- 
sition." 

This definition appears well enough, till one 
tries to understand it. But the first attempt which 
one makes to comprehend its import, involves it in 
great obscurity. In the definition before us, we 
find this state lugged in again — and to what effect ? 
It is not explanation ; but on the contrary, it is a 
point which requires much explanation. If Mr. 
Comly knew what state it is of which he speaks so 
much, why did he not employ Mr. Murray's defi- 



nite article, or some other descriptive word, and 
point out the kind of state he means !? 

" The objective case is a state of the noun or 
pronoun, when it is the object of the transitive 
verb, participle, or preposition." 

Let us use the only word which Mr. Comly 
could have employed for the description of this 
state : 

The objective case is the objective state of a 
noun, or pronoun when it is the object of a transi- 
tive verb, participle or preposition. More than this, 
Mr. Comly does not mean. But even this he can- 
not sustain. If he means what we have supposed 
him to mean, his definition is made out at the word, 
pronoun — " The objective case is an objective state 
of a noun or pronoun." Is there any such state ? 
As what ? As an objective state of a noun. We 
contend that there is not. If there is such a state, 
it can be found ; yet he has not condescended to 
define it. If he ever comprehended the true char- 
acter of this state, we are surprised to find that he 
has not told in what it consists — and, if he never 
knew its true character, we are astonished that he 
should talk so much about it ! ! This objective 
state must consist in the position of the noun — or 
it cannot exist in our language. Let us, then, see 
whether the objective noun has any fixed place in 
the sentence : " John is a good pupil ; and such 
pupils all teachers admire." 

John, the first nominative, stands before the 
vert) — the noun, pupil, the second nominative, 
stands after the verb ! " Admire'''' is a transitive 
verb, and pupils, a noun in the objective case, and 
is placed before this verb ! ! 

"All thorough teachers will enable their pupils 
to think." 

Here we find the word, pupils, still in the ob. 
jective case — yet it here stands after the verb ! 

" This is not the thing which he thinks of." 

The objective case of of is found in which, be- 
fore he ! 

" This is not the thing of which he thinks." 

Here the objective case is found in which, and 
is placed after of! 

Hence we find that there is no certain place 
which can be claimed as the position of the object- 
ive case. But even if there was, yet, as this place 
could not be called a state, Mr. Comly's definition 
of the objective would be no definition at all ! 
What, then, has Mr. Comly done ? Has he at- 
tempted to distinguish two things by their color, 
which have the same color ! Yes, he has done 
worse — he has undertaken to distinguish two 
things by color, when at the same time, neither 
of the things, has any kind of color ! ! He has at- 
tempted to distinguished the nominative case by a 
state which the noun derives from the fact that it 
is the subject of the verb — the noun, however, de- 
rives no state from this source ! ! 

He has attempted to distinguish the objective 
case by a state which the noun derives from the 



24 



APPEAL. 



fact that it is the object of a transitive verb, or a 
preposition — but the noun derives no state from 
this source ! ! 

To give a clearer view of this point, it may be 
well to call the attention of the reader to the defi- 
nition of case itself, as given by Mr. Comly. 

"Case is a change or difference in the termina- 
tion or situation of a noun or pronoun." 

Now, there are three particular cases ; and each 
should have its proper portion of case itself/ The 
three special cases he defines in the following 
manner : 

1. " The nominative case is simply the name of 
a thing or the state of a noun or pronoun, when it 
is the subject of a verb; as, /walk." 

2. " The possessive case denotes property or 
possession ; as, thy book." 

3. The objective case is the state of a noun or 
pronoun, when it is the object of a transitive verb, 
participle or preposition ; as, I taught her." 

Let us now repeat the author's definition of case 
itself. 

" Case is a difference or change in the termina- 
tion or situation of a noun or pronoun." 

This definition should be properly distributed 
among the three definitions of the special cases. 
Has this distribution been made ? We undertake 
to say that it has not. In each of the particular 
definitions, there is a new principle which forms 
the basis of the special definition. " The nomina- 
tive case is simply the name of a thing." 

The generic, or parent definition of case, speaks 
of no principle like that which is denominated in 
the clause, 

" Is simply the name of a thing !" 

The generic definition says that, 

" Case is a change or difference !" 

Hence the nominative case must be something 
more than a mere name of a thing ! 

Let us now examine the second clause of Mr. 
Comly's definition of the nominative : 

" Or a state of a noun or pronoun when it is the 
subject of a verb." 

Here we admit that Mr. Comly includes indi- 
rectly one fact which he has presented in his 
generic definition of case. In the definition of 
case itself, the author says, 

" A difference in the condition of a noun or 
pronoun." 

And in his definition of the nominative, he says, 

" State of a noun or pronoun." 

But what state is this to which the author al- 
ludes ? No state at all! What then? It is 
something which the peculiar state of Mr. Comly 
compelled him to fancy into being ! The reader 
sees that this state is the very point which we 
have already discussed. And he well knows that 
in this discussion, it is proved by examples, that 
the noun and pronoun derive no state from the 
fact that they are the signs of the subjects of 
verbs ! 



1. "The nominative case is simply the name 
of a thing, or the state of a noun or pronoun when 
it is the subject of a verb ; as Jam he." 

2. " The Possessive Case. — The possessive case 
denotes property or possession ; as thy book." 

Now this definition recognises no one principle 
contained in the definition of case itself. The 
generic definition gives no intimation of pos- 
session. 

3. " The objective case is a state of a noun or 
pronoun when it is the object of a transitive verb, 
participle or preposition." 

This definition is founded upon a state of a noun 
or pronoun — and in this respect, it bears an indi- 
rect resemblance to the generic definition of case. 
The generic definition speaks, of a difference in 
the condition of a noun or pronoun ; and from 
this analogous phraseology, some resemblance in 
idea may be inferred. But it will be recollected, 
that the state upon which this definition of the ob- 
jective case is founded does not exist ! This state 
is just nothing at all ! Does Mr. Comly even at- 
tempt to define it ? No — he infoiYns the pupil 
when it exists. Ah ! — yes — and at what time 
does it exist? never! For there is nothing to 
exist ! But Mr. Comly says that it exists at the very 
instant the noun or pronoun is the object of a 
transitive verb, participle or preposition! 

" The objective case is the state of a noun or 
pronoun when it is the object of a transitive verb, 
participle or preposition ! !" 

" The objective case is the state of a noun or 
pronoun." 

But what state of a noun or pronoun ? This 
question is too severe ! O, no ! says Mr. Comly — -I 
can answer the question with ease ! " It is that 
particular state which a noun or a pronoun de- 
rives from the fact that it is the object of a transi- 
tive verb, participle or preposition !" 

But, Mr. Comly, we have already shown that 
nouns and pronouns derive no fixed, no certain, 
no particular state from the fact that they are the 
objects of these parts of speech ! Does this state 
consist in place, position ? No — for the nomina- 
tive case can occupy the same position which the 
objective can. 

Does this state consist in length ? No — for the 
noun is no longer, when in the objective case, than 
it is when in the nominative ! 

We ask again. — Can this state consist in the 
position of the word ? No ! The nominative case 
may come before as well as after the verb — and so 
may the objective ; as, 

nom. nom. nom. 

" John is a good pupil." " They teach this 
ob. 

PUPIL." 

ob. 
[" That book she purchased."] [That is] (the 
ob. nom. 
pen) (which I made.) 



APPEAL 



25 



In the preceding instances, the objective is 
placed before as well as after, the verb. The object- 
ive, then, in point of position, has nothing different 
from the nominative ! 

" Case is a change or difference in the termina- 
tion or condition of a noun or pronoun." 

This definition is a mere nothing — it does not 
apply to our nouns, and pronouns which arc in the 
nominative, and objective case. For instance, I 
and me, are not different terminations of the same 
word — these are two different words ! So it is 
with she, and her, he, and him. What is meant 
by changes in the termination of words, may be 
seen from the different endings of "write;" as, 
s, ih, st. Writes, writeiA, writes*. 

Perhaps, however, it may be said that, Mr. 
Comly's definition of case, suits who, and whom, 
thou, and thee. 

It may apply also to the nouns, and pronouns, 
which are in the possessive case ; as, my hat, 
John's glove. But his definition applies to no 
noun which is parsed either in the nominative, or 
the objective case : for the noun undergoes no 
change with a view to fit it for either of these 
cases. For example — 

" John saw John' 1 

The first " John 1 '' is in the nominative case — the 
second, in the objective. 

2. " These lads hurt those lads.'"' 

The first noun is in the nominative case — the 
second, in the objective. 

But it is the intention of Mr. Comly to secure 
these nouns by the following phraseology : 

" A difference in the condition of a noun or 
pronoun." 

In this, however, the author is completely de- 
feated — for we have more than once shown that 
these nouns derive no condition from the fact that 
they are the subjects, or objects of verbs ! The 
objective noun may be placed lefore the verb 
which governs it ; or it may be placed after the 
verb which governs it. To support this posi- 
tion, we have already given many instances — but 
to give the subject all that, attention which it de- 
serves, and to aid them who require clear, and fre- 
quent illustration, we shall adduce a few other 
examples : 

1. " This is the book which he purchased." 

2. " Which did he purchase?" 

3. " These are fine pupils — and such children 
all people must admire." 

4. " It is nothing which he desires." 

5. " It is a fact which I know nothing of" 
Now, if Mr. Comly cannot derive this difference 

in the condition of a noun, and pronoun, from the 
place of the noun, and pronoun, he cannot sustain 
his definition of case ! But he may say that this 
condition is the position itself. If so, his objective 
case is neither more, nor less than an objective 
position I Hence case would mean nothing but 
the place on the paper, in which the noun or the 



pronoun stands. But as there is no certain place 
in which the objective noun stands, in relation to 
the verb that governs it, there can be no objective 
position ; hence, when we give Mr. Comly all, 
yea more than he seems to claim, his objective 
case is nothing at all '. 

Mr. Comly first gives a definition of case itself 
— he then proceeds to give definitions of the three 
different cases, by introducing principles entirely 
different from those contained in the definition of 
case itself! Yes, so widely does he depart from 
his first, or general definition of case, that his par- 
ticular definitions have nothing in them having 
a direct resemblance to case itself! 

But Mr. Comly's definition of case itself, is 
narrow, illiberal, ill constructed, and altogether 
incompetent ! It speaks of nothing which can be 
found in the grammatical principles of the English 
language ! It is founded upon a difference in the 
condition of nouns — but what this condition is, is 
yet to be made out ! For the author has not 
thought proper even to attempt to define it ! ! Mr. 
Comly's definition speaks of " a difference in the 
condition of a noun" — but would it not be well 
for him to make out the existence of the condition 
itself, before he attempts to show a difference in 
it ! This prating about the difference in the con- 
dition of nouns, is disputing about the division of 
an estate, where in fact there is no estate for dis- 
tribution ! ' 

In giving a definition of the nominative case, 
Mr. Comly employs the word, "subject." But this 
instructor of little children gives no kind of expla- 
nation of what he means by the phrase, " nomina- 
tive case I .'" 

" The nominative case is simply the name of a 
thing, or the state of a noun, or pronoun, when it 
is the subject of a verb !" — as, " John saw John,' 1 '' 

Now, the first " John" is in the nominative case. 
But can the pupil see that the first " John" is any 
more the subject of the verb than the second ? 

" John, this John hurt that John." 

The first John is not the subjectof the verb ; for 
it stands independent of the verb — yet the first 
" John" is in the nominative case ! ! " Subject of 
a verb" is much like the " difference in a con- 
dition .'" 

In point of fact there is nothing which is a sub- 
jeet of a verb. Tilings, perhaps, may be divided 
into subjects, and objects — : but not upon the mere 
circumstance, or fact of having their names me- 
chanically connected with verbs ! As well might 
it be said that one's ears are subjects, because they 
are connected with his head, as that nouns are 
subjects, because they are connected with verbs ! 
But to say that one noun is converted into a subject 
through the magic of this connection, while the 
other is degraded to a mere object of the same con- 
nection, is queer, indeed ! Why, has the noun in 
the nominative case any closer connection with the 
verb than the noun in the objective ? — 



26 



APPEAL. 



" John, this John hurt that John.'''' 
The first " John" has no sort of connection with 
the verb '■'■hurt,'''' — yet it is in the nominative 
case! 

The last "John" has a close connection with 
this verb ; yet it is in the objective case ! ! 

How, then, does Mr. Comly support his defi- 
nition of the nominative case ? 

The distinction between a subject, and an ob- 
ject is a very important point — a point which we 
think Mr. Comly should have understood, before 
making the above use of the word, "subject." 

" The nominative case is the subject of a verb ;" 
as u John is John, John hurt John .'" 

Now, what great difference is there between the 
two "Johns," — one following is, and the other 
hurt ? That which follows " is," is in the nomina- 
tive case — that which follows "hurt" is in the 
objective ! 

Has Mr. Murray, or Mr. Comly, or has any 
other writer upon this science, explained the dif- 
ference between a subject, and an object ? Not 
one — nor do we believe that the authors of the 
vast numbers of English grammars, that have dis- 
tracted this science, and blinded the public vision, 
have ever understood the principle upon which a dis- 
tinction may be made, that will justify the use of 
the words, " subject," and " object" in a system of 
grammar. 

1. " The subject of a verb." 

2. " The nominative case is the subject of a 
verb." 

Absurd as it may appear, they who have writ- 
ten our English Grammars, have used the phrase- 
ology, 

"Subjects of verbs," and objects of verbs, as 
though these were points which the learner in- 
stinctively comprehends ! 

We put the following question to all the friends 
to, and foes of, the British system of English 
grammar : 

Is the noun itself the subject of the verb, or is 
the person, or thing denoted by the noun, the sub- 
ject of the verb ? 

If they tell us that it is the noun itself, then, in- 
deed, the subjective character of a noun depends 
entirely upon the noun's frame-work relation to 
the verb! And as the objective noun is as closely 
connected with the verb as the subjective, it fol- 
lows that all nouns having a frame- work relation 
with verbs, are the subjects of verbs — hence, all 
nouns are in the nominative case ! " John saw 
John," " John hurt himself." 

But, if they tell us, as does Mr. Murray, that 
the subject is not the noun, but the thing denoted 
by the noun, then, indeed, all the words, in the 
same sentence, denoting the same thing, are sub- 
jects of verbs. For instance — John hurt himself. 

Here John, and himself, mean the same person. 
And, if the word, John, is put into the nominative 
because the real person is the subject, what be- 



comes of the word himself? Does not himself 
denote the subject as clearly as does the word 
" John ?" Does not himself allude to the same 
being to whom John refers ? What, then, be- 
comes of the doctrine that a word is in the nomi- 
native case because it refers to the person, or 
thing that is "principally spoken of I ?" 

Matter and Thought Grammar — p. 54. Mr. 
Car dell remarks — 

"Nouns stand in different relations to other 
words ; as, Henry conquered Richard — Richard 
conquered Henry." 

The compiler observes, under the same page, 
that, 

" The nominative case denotes the performer 
of an action ; and the objective, the object which 
receives its effects ; as, 

K They sent a letter to him." 

" He sent an answer to them." 

This epistolary correspondence is nearly equal 
to the bull, and boat illustration ! " The nomina- 
tive case denotes the performer ;" as, a letter was 
sent by him to them 1 .' A letter was sent to them 
by him ! .' They were written to by him .' ! He 
was written to by them ! 

Now, let it be observed, that the compiler's 
position is, that the one who writes to the other, is 
the nominative — and that the one who is written 
to, is the object. 

1. " A letter was sent to him by them ! ! 

2. " A letter was written to them by him .' ! 

Them, and him, consequently, are objective pro- 
nouns in the nominative case, and governed by the 
preposition by '. ! ! 

"Whichever did the action is the nominative, the 
other is the objective." — Cardeix. 

1. He was written to by them ! 

2. They were written to by him ! 

As Mr. Cardell says, that the one who does not 
write, or that does not do the action, is in the 
objective, it follows that he, and they are in the 
objective case to the verbs "was written," and 
" were written ."' Hence the old rule should 
read thus, 

The verb must agree with the objective case in 
number and person ! 

" Whichever did the action is the nominative, 
the other is the objective." 

That is, if the bull carried off the boat, then, the 
bull is the nominative, and the boat is the object ; 
as, " the boat was carried off by the bull 1 !" 

But, if the boat carried off the bull, then, the 
boat is the nominative, and the bull is the object ; 
as, The bull was carried off by the boat ! 

So much for Mr. Cardell's attempt to form a 
grammar for the English language, according to 
the laws of "matter and thought." But this poly, 
glot grammarian will be able to mend the rigging 
of this boat, launch it de novo, and shoot away by 
hi-s compass of "matter and thought ."' We admit 
that we pay very little respect to Mr. Cardell's 



APPEAL 



27 



matter and thought grammar. But it may not bo 
proper, in this place, to give our reason for this 
want of respect. To proceed — 

" The objective case expresses the ohject of an 
action or of a relation; as, Saul persecuted the 
Christians in every synagogue." 

The word, Saul, is in the nominative case to the 
verb, persecuted ; the word, Christians, is in the 
objective case, governed by persecuted ; the word 
synagogue, is in the objective case, governed 
by in. 

Let us now ascertain whether this manner of 
casing comports with the definition of the cases. 

The objective case, according to the definition, 
is that into which the words are put, that are the 
names of things acted upon. If so, the word, 
Christians, is doubtless in the objective, as the ex- 
ample now stands. 

Invert the order of these words, and view this 
matter — " The Christians were persecuted by Saul 
in every Synagogue." 

As the sentence first stands, the word, Christ- 
ians, is truly in the objective case. But ?/ as it here 
stands, we, are told that the same word is not in 
the objective, but in the nominative case ! Now, 
does it appear from the definition of the objective 
case, that a mere change in the collocation of 
words, is to wrest the same noun from the object, 
ive, and put it into the nominative case ? What 
says the definition? It asserts as decidedly as words 
can declare that the name of the thing acted upon, 
is in the objective case. But we ask whether any 
one can pretend, when the preceding example reads 
thus : 

The Christians were persecuted by Saul — " 

That the word, Christians, is not the name of 
the persons acted upon, equally as much as when 
the example stands in the following order : 

" Saul persecuted the Christians." 

Does the new collocation of the words so entirely 
change the fact affirmed? If not, the word, 
Christians, is in the objective case just as much 
when the example reads thus : 

" The Christians were persecuted by Saul — " 
as it is when the assertion is made with the 
words in this order : 

" Saul persecuted the Christians." 

But we are told that this point is made logical 
by calling, was persecuted, a passive verb ; there- 
fore let us set aside the error for a moment, and 
consider the grounds of its justification. The verb, 
persecuted, is the name of an action by which 
persons haTass each other. The word, passive, 
alludes to the state of whatever is acted upon. 
Now, then, we ask whether the action, performed 
by Saul, in this scene, was passive, or whether the 
Christians were passive ? Was the action of Saul, 
affected ; or were the Christians affected ? How 
would the Christians themselves answer this ques- 
tion ? Would they say they suffered nothing in 
this scene,— that Saul's action did not terminate 



upon them, but upon itself? If so, the name of 
his action, must be passive, instead of the word, 
Christians, the name of the persons really acted 
upon ! ! 

If the sentence stands thus : 

" The Christians were persecuted by Saul." 

The verb, persecuted, is a. passive verb, because 
it is acted upon ! 

But, if it stands in this manner: 

" Saul persecuted the Christian s." 

Then, the Christians themselves are acted upon, 
and, consequently, the word, Christians, is put into 
the objective case ! Strange reasoning this ! 

We can perceive no difference between perse- 
cuted, and an active verb. An active verb, says 
the old theory, " expresses an action that passes " 
from the actor, and terminates upon some object ! 
Now, the word, persecuted, does express an action 
which did terminate upon the Christians. 

And we are told that the verb, persecuted, in the 
following arrangement, is in fact an active verb : 
" Saul persecuted the Christians." But does this 
verb signify any less passion or suffering in this 
collocation than in the following ? : 

" The Christians were persecuted by Saul." 

The truth is, that according to the definition of 
a passive verb, persecuted is a passive verb in one 
order as much as in the other, since it does express 
in both, what constitutes a passive verb — and 
according to the character of an active verb, 
persecuted is an active verb in both construc- 
tions ! ! 

Having taken a cursory view of the ground upon 

which the word, Christians, i& wrested irom the 

objective case, we will now proceed to consider the 
manner in which the noun, Saul, is parsed with 
the words in the following order: 

" The Christians were persecuted by Saul.'''' 

Here, it is manifest, that Saul himself was the 
actor ; and the question now is in what case is the 
noun, Saul ? 

By the old system this name is parsed thus : 

Saul is a proper noun, third person, singular 
number, in the objective case, governed by the 
preposition, by. 

But the word, Saul, is not the name of the per- 
son acted upon ; it is the name of the actor ; there- 
fore it cannot be in the objective case. 

It is pretended, however, that there are objects 
of relation ; hence it is our duty to see whether 
the noun, Saul, can be put into the objective case 
upon this principle. 

The definition first asserts that the objective case 
is the name of the object of an action, and then 
puts in the clause " of a relation.''' 

James sits by John. 

For one moment, let us say, that because the 
real person called James, sits near the person de- 
nominated John, the noun James, should be parsed 
in the objective case. Now, how, on this princi- 
ple, can we avoid finding John in the objective 



28 



APPEAL. 



case likewise ? Is not John as near to James, as 
James is to John ? Must not, consequently both 
John and James be equally the objects of this ob- 
jective relation ! !? , 

Before the noun, John, can be put into the 
nominative, and the word, James, into the object, 
ive case, let it appear that James is nearer to John, 
than John is to James ! ! 

" Let us," says Mr. Murray, " have a compre- 
hensive objective case ; one that will include all 
the objects of action as well as those of relation." 

His objective case not only includes both these ; 
but unfortunately, it extends to the nominative and 
possessive case also. If the relation of words, or 
of things, is a foundation for an objective case, all 
words which have a relation, are in the objective 
case; hence conjunctions, adverbs, verbs, adjec 
tives, and even prepositions themselves must be in 
the objective case, or they have no relation with 
other words ! ! But if these parts of speech have 
no relation with other words, on what, we ask, are 
the rules founded, that adverbs qualify verbs ; that 
adjectives qualify nouns ; that articles limit nouns ; 
that prepositions govern nouns, &c. ? Will it be 
said that all these parts of speech are in the object- 
ive case ? This must be done, or the objective 
case, founded upon relation, must be set aside ! 

But what is the particular use of the objective 
case ? The question is answered by the theory of 
which this case itself is a fair sample. One of the 
grounds upon winch the objective case is consid- 
ered advantageous, is convenience in grammatical 
solution ; another is the importance that it can be 

Said, We have no nouns that cannot be cased but 

the last, and that most particularly depended upon, 
is its use by way of distinction between the actor, 
and the object of the action. 

But, is it true that the name of the object is 
always in the objective ? or, rather, is it not true that 
the name of the actor is as often in the objective 
as in the nominative ; and is it not true, that the 
name of the object is as often in the nominative as 
in the objective ? 



" The Christians were persecuted by Saul." 

Will it be said that in this sentence, the 
name of the object has the objective case 1 and 
must it not be admitted that Saul, the name of the 
actor, is parsed in the objective case ? 

But the absurdity does not end here : for, in 
many sentences, the name of the thing which nei- 
ther acts, nor is acted upon, is put into the objective 
case. " The Christians were persecuted by Saul 
in every synagogue." 

It is said that the objective case is the name of 
the object : but the word, Saul, is the name of the 
actor ; yet it is in the objective ; hence contra- 
diction. The word, Christians, which is the name 
of the persons acted upon, is in the nominative 



case instead of the objective ; hence absurdity. 
But the noun, synagogue, is neither the name of 
the actor, nor the name of an object ; and yet this 
noun is said to be in the objective case ; — and 
here, too, is absurdity ! 

Can the old system, inform the learner, 
that the name of the actor is in the nominative 
case, or that the name of the object is in the 
objective, when in truth the name of the actor is as 
often in the objective as in the nominative, and the 
name of the object as often in the nominative as 
in the objective ! ? And what is still more per- 
plexing, is, that the name of what neither acts, 
nor is acted upon, is parsed, in two-thirds of the 
instances, in the objective case ! ! 

Doctor Bullions defines the objective case as 
follows, 

" The objective case denotes the object of some 
action or relation ; as, James assists Thomas ; they 
live in Albany." 

44 Thomas," and "Albany" are in the objective 
case. 

What is an object of an action ? 

We understand that an object of an action, is the 
thing on which an action terminates ; as, 

1. Thomas was assisted by James. (Thomas.) 

2. 44 Apples were eaten by me." (Apples.) 

3. The eye is affected by the light." (Eye.) 
Yet, astonishing- aa it must appeal", the nouns, 

Thomas, apples, and eye, are in the nominative 
case ! ! ! 

" They live in Albany." 

As the word Albany, is employed by Mr. Bul- 
lions to illustrate the part of his definition of the 
objective case, which is founded upon relation, it 
may be well to inquire what is an object of rela- 
tion." 

44 The objective case denotes the object of some 
action or relation." 

That is, the objective case denotes an object of 
some action ; or it denotes an object of some re- 
lation. 

"An object of relation" 

What does this language mean ? 

We are hohest — we do not intend to quibble ; 
we declare that we can not comprehend this lan- 
guage. 

Why has not Mr. Bullions explained what he 
means by 44 an object of some relation ?" The only 
way in which we can understand this language, is, 
that where different things bear a relation to one 
another, they are objects of relation. No other 
meaning can we give to this phraseology : 

44 The object of a relation." 

But of all the names of the objects of relation, 
which one is to be in the objective case ? 

44 They live in Albany." 

They bear a relation to Albany — and Albany 
bears a relation to them ! Which, then, is the ob- 
ject of this local relation? Both are objects of this 



APPEAL. 



29 



relation ! Why, then, is not " they" as much in 
the objective case as " Albany .' ? 

" John is with his uncle." 

These two persons are together — hence they are 
both the objects of this common relation. Yet, 
while " uncle" is parsed in the objective case upon 
the ground of the relation which the uncle himself 
bears to John, "John" is parsed, not in the object- 
ive case at all, but in the nominative ! ! ! It is so 
— question it who may. 

" John is with his uncle." 

How much nearer is the uncle to John than 
John is to the uncle ! ? We fancy that we hear 
Mr. Bullions himself say, "they are equally 
near." 

Yet John is not the object of the relation which 
he bears to the uncle ! How, then, can the uncle 
be the object of the relation which he bears to 
John ! ? 

In an English Grammar by Pardon Davis, we 
find the following under page 37 — 

" PREPOSITION." 

Any word showing the relative position of two 
persons or things, is a preposition ; as, He is near 
Philadelphia. The book is on the table. — Pardon 
Da vi s. 

Here it is openly said that all the things bear a 
relation — and it is most clearly proved to be so by . 
the very examples which are employed to illustrate 
the doctrine. 

1. " He is near Philadelphia" 

2. " John is near Philadelphia." 

Can it be said that Philadelphia is in the 
objective case on the ground of the relation which 
this city bears to John ? It must be, said, then, 
that John is in the objective case, on the ground 
of the relation which he bears to this city ! 

Goold Brown says, — 

The objective case is that, form, or state, of a 
noun or pronoun which denotes the object of a 
verb, participle, or preposition ; as, I know the 
hoy. — Goold Brown. 

" I know the boy" 

Here boy is in the objective case. 

The boy is known by me. 

Here boy is in the nominative case ! ! But, has 
the word, loy, changed its form ? It is boy in the 
objective; and it is boy in the nominative! ! 

But it may be said that the word, boy, has 
changed its state '. ! 

1. "I know the boy." 

2. " The boy is known by me." 

In both instances this noun denotes the person 
who is known. How, then, has it changed its 
state ? 

But let us inquire what is the meaning of the 
language — 

" The object of a verb, participle or preposi- 
tion." 



Has Mr. Brown told us what the object of a 
verb is ! ? Has he told us what the object of a 
preposition is ! ? Has he told us what the object 
of a participle is ! ? Not a word is said upon these 
points in his whole book ! Let us, then, see if we 
can devise what an object of a verb is : 

The object of a verb is the word which the 
meaning of the verb suggests to the mind as a 
proper word to be used with the verb. For 
instance — the verb, drinks, suggests the use of 
the words, water, milk, tea, coffee, cider, wine, &c. 

" Henry drinks tea out of a cup." 

As we do not drink cups, the word which drinks 
suggests, is tea. The word, tea, then, may be con- 
sidered the object of drinks. 



But the meaning of drinks not only suggests a 
word denoting something which we drink — as 
water, wine, but it suggests a word denoting some 
being that drinks, — as, man, boy, girl, ox, horse. 

Let us, then, supply these two suggested 
words : 

Henry drinks wine. 

The meaning of drinks requires both words, — 
Henry and wine. Which, then, is the object ! ? 
Is not the thing after which D. reaches with his 
left hand, as much an object as that after which 
he reaches with his right hand ! ? 

" John saw the bird fly." 

The word, saw, reaches, after John as much as 
it does after bird. Which noun, then, is the object 
of saw 11 

What is the object after which fly reaches ? 
Does the meaning of the word, fly, suggest John 
or bird, or both ? Fly reaches toward bird. Bird % 
then, is the object of fly. 

" The bird was seen to fly by John." 

Let us now see whether " the" has not an 
objective case ! 

1. The— the what ? The, but the what ? The 
surely reaches after some sign, some objective 
word. "The bird." Bird, then, is the objective 
word of the ! But bird is in the nominative case ! 
Bird in the nominative case ! ? Why, was is con- 
stantly reaching after bird. Was — but was what ? 
What was ? Bird was. " Bird," then, is the 
objective word of was ! 

2. Seen also reaches for some word to sustain 
itself. Was seen. — What was seen ? Bird was 
seen. " Bird," then, is an object of seen. 

But seen is not perfectly satisfied yet. Seen still 
reaches for some word which denotes the being 
who saw. The bird was seen — hence some being 
must have seen it. Seen, then, makes sense with 
bird, and John, after which words it constantly 
reaches ! 

3. To — to what? This preposition, like every 
other branch word, reaches after some super, some 
basis word to sustain it in the connection in which 



30 



APPEAL. 



it stands in this verbal frame- work. To what ? is 
constantly addressed to the mind. The answer to 
this standing interrogation, is, fly. To fly. The 
verb fly, then, is in the objective case after to ! ! 

4. By — by what ? By John. John, then, is the 
object of by. 

Let us repeat Mr. Brown's definition of the 
objective case : 

" The objective case is that form or state of a 
noun or pronoun, which denotes the object of a 
verb, participle or preposition ; as, I know the 
boy." 

This definition is founded, not. upon the object 
of action, and relation, but upon the object of a 
reference to, a pointing to, a reaching after. The 
words in a sentence, which can not stand alone, 
reach after some other words in the verbal frame- 
work to sustain them. The arms by which these 
words reach, are the significations, and the branch 
character of the words. And, as whatever is 
pursued, referred to, or reached after, becomes an 
object, the words to which the referring words 
relate, or after which the reaching words, reach, 
may be called the objects of the referring, of the 
reaching, words. 

" I know the boy.'" 

The word, know, refers directly to I and boy. 
J know boy. 

Hence "I" and " boy," are the objects to which 
" know " points — and after which it actually 
reaches. 

" The " refers, not to « I," but to " boy." 
The I does not give the idea — not the true sense. 
The. boy expresses the true sense, and connection. 
The object of " the" then, is " boy." 

The change, therefore, which Goold Brown has 
made in the basis of the objective case, is certainly 
a striking improvement upon Murray ! ! 

" The objective case is that form or state of a 
noun or pronoun, which denotes the object of a 
verb, participle or preposition ; as, I know the 
boy. 

But will the boy ever know the objective case 1 1 

Mr. Brown remarks in his Preface, that, 

He has not labored to overthrow the general 
system of grammar, received from time immemo- 
rial, but to improve upon it, in its present applica- 
tion to our tongue. — Goold Brown. 

That Mr. Brown has improved upon Mr. 
Murray's absurdities there can be no doubt ! 

The objective case expresses the object of an 
action or of a relation. — Murray. 

This definition places the nominative case in the 
objective — and the objective in the nominative. 
But it does not like that given by Goold Brown, 
place verbs in the objective case — nor does it like 
Mr. B.'s, give articles, adjectives, conjunctions, 
and adverbs the objective case ! ! ! 

Mr. Bradford Frazee, says, 

" Case means the position in the name of the 
sentence, with respect to other words." (Page 25.) 



Under page 26, he says, 

" The nominative case is the naming case ! ! " 

Under page 27, he says, 

" The nominative Gase does something — the 
possessive case owns something — the objective case 
has something done to it ! !" 

Let us illustrate these golden principles : 

" The nominative case is the naming case." 

" He is not thou." 

" He " is in the nominative case — but is " he " a 
name ! ? If the word, he, is a name, why is not 
this word a noun ! ? 

" Thou" is in the naming case ! But Mr. 
Frazee says that thou is not a noun, because it is 
not a name ! I 

If the nominative case is the naming case, why 
is not every name in the nominative case ! ! ! ? 

"He purchased a book of Johnson." 

1. " He," although not a name, is in the naming 
case ! 

2. But book, although a name, is not in the 
naming case, but in the objective ! ! I 

And "Johnson," the name of the person of 
whom he made the purchase, is not in the nomi- 
native, but in the objective case ! ! ! 

1. " The nominative case does something ;" as, 
The rock was smitten by Moses 1 ! 

2. " The possessive case owns something :" as, 
Henry owns Bradford Fra zee's Grammar i ! ! 

3. " The objective case has something done to 
it ;" as, 

The rock was smitten by Moses ! ! ? 

Yes, ) r es, — the objective case has something 
done to it ; it has been murdered ! ? 

Let us examine the manner in which the nouns, 
and pronouns are disposed of in cunsLi ucliuiis like 
the following : 

"Jam the lad." 

" It is they." 

" He is I." 

" He is not IJ 1 

" This pupil is not John Foster." 

" John Foster is not the pupil whom I taught." 

1. "Jam the lad." 

The pronoun, I, is in the nominative case to am. 
The noun, lad, is also in the nominative case to 
am ! But how very different is that relation 
which the pronoun, I, bears to am, from that 
which the noun, lad, bears to this verb ! Can we 
say — The lad am ? Now, if the nominative case 
is any thing, and lad bears a nominative case 
relation to am, why is it that we cannot say — The 
lad am ? Has lad no relation with am ? Is it 
not meant that lad is in the nominative case with 
respect to am ? If lad is not in the nominative 
case with respect to am, in respect to what verb is 
it in the nominative case ! ? Is lad in the nomi- 
native case ! ? Is lad in the nominative case 
without reference to any verb ! ? Is this noun in 
the nominative case independent of all verbs ! ? 
Are we told that this noun is in the nominative 



APPEAL. 



31 



case after am ? But does the word, after, show 
the relation oHad to am — nr docs it merely point 
out on which side of am this noun stands ? Why, 
the pronoun, 7, may stand after the verb : 

"Am I not free ?" 

"7am the lad?" 

I, and lad are both parsed in the nominative 
case — and they are both parsed in the nomina- 
tive in reference to this one verb, am ! But how 
different are the relations which these two nomi- 
natives bear to this verb ! ! 

It may not be amiss to cite the rule which the 
British grammarians apply in instances like the 
one before us — 

The verb to be through all its variations has 
the same case after it which it has before it. — 
Murray. 

The propriety of the rule is obvious, for both 
nouns express the same thing. — Murray. 

Now, according to this doctrine, I and myself, 
as used in the following instance, are both in the 
same case : 

/hurt myself. 

The two pronouns, in this sentence, mean the 
same person ; and if identity in thing, or person 
throws both nouns into the same case, the word, 
myself, is not in the objective case, as the British 
grammarians say, but in the nominative after the 
verb hurt !! 

Again. ["I am not] (the lad) (whom you 
taught.") 

As lad^ and /mean different persons, what is to 
become of the noun, lad? Is it in the nominative 
case after am, upon the ground that it denotes the 
same person denoted by I! ? Here it is seen, that, 
while the solution of myself, in the first example, 
distracts Mr. Murray's rule, the solution of lad, in 
the second, saps its very foundation — identity! 

In what way will the words in italics be dis- 
posed of according to the old school grammars ? 

1. "I am the lad." 

2. " I am not the lad." 

3. " It is they." 

4. " It is not /." 

5. " I am the lad whom you taught." 

How, we ask, is whom to be parsed ? We ask, 
because /, lad, and whom mean the same person ! 
Is whom in the nominative case after am ? If the 
doctrine of identity is sound, it must be parsed in 
this way ! And if this doctrine is unsound, how 
are the nouns in italics, in the following sentences, 
to be parsed ? 

1. I am not the lad. 

2. It is not John. 

3. This is not the boy for whom you search. 

4. Truth is not falsehood. 

5. [Falsehood is not truth] (except in grammar !) 
Finally, let us exhibit an instance, in which the 

three cases assemble in the same word : 

Yours were punished ! " Hers were acquitted." 
Yours denotes the subject of the verb ; it denotes 



the object of the action also ; and all our grammars 
give it as the possessive case of you. Yes, within 
the orthographical boundaries of one short word, 
we find this triplicate group of cases, floating upon 
liquid error, ebbing and flowing before the influ- 
ence of habit and education ! 

Let no man say, that to introduce the noun, a 
letter, or two must be severed from the pronoun ; 
thus : your children were punished. 

These examples are purely good English, as 
they now stand : and our system of cases should 
enable us to parse them without collision or 
diminution ! 

Thus, we have traced the cases through alter- 
nate succession of error, and mystery till they 
have convened in one short word ! And here we 
leave. the convention in the shape of a grammati- 
cal jubilee, celebrating the day even in advance, 
of their dissolution, and final departure from the 
English tongue. 

But has the " new system" a remedy ? None 
at all ! ! The disease of the old is constitutional, 
and is past a cure. Constitutional ? ! Yes — the 
disease is constitutional, and consists in the very 
want of a constitution ! ! The new system is 
presented, not as a remedy for the old apparatus, 
but as a substitute for it. The substitute is built 
upon a new bottom, constructed upon new princi- 
ples, and composed of new materials. Yes — it has 
left the old structure groaning under the weight 
of incurable disease — it has left it to fall into one 
massive pile of monumental glory to the name of 
Murray — it has left it to tumble, and to crush 
those who have tinkered it into contortions, and 
themselves into authors ! 

■ recapitulation. 

" Johnson is with his brother." 

Which is the nearer, the brother to Johnson, or 
Johnson to the brother ! ? As the word, brother, 
only, is parsed in the objective, it is to be presumed 
that the brother is much nearer to Johnson than 
Johnson is to him I - • 

It is said by Murray, and others, that the nomi- 
native case is the subject of the verb. A subject, 
says Johnson, " is that on which any mental, or 
material operation is performed." Hence the 
surgeon denominates the dead body which he dis- 
sects, his subject. Let us, then, say 

" Smith dissected that body with great skill," 
and we shall see with what adroitness Mr. Murray 
turns the subject into an object, and the operator 
himself into a subject! "Smith dissected that 
body." 

Here, says Murray, Smith is the subject, and 
the dead body the object! But is Smith operated 
upon by the dead body? Which, then, is the 
subject ? 

Again, — "Johnson, thou hast been punished 
with just severity." 



32 



APPEAL. 



Here the word, Johnson, is in the nominative 
case independent of the verb ! How can this word 
be the subject of the verb, and yet be independent 
of the verb ? How can A be the subject of a king-, 
and yet be independent of that king- ? How can 
A. be connected with D. and yet have no connection 
with D ? Further — Johnson is not only not the 
subject (except under the true definition of subject, 
which Mr. Murray clearly, rejects) but he is, in 
truth, the object, of the action ! 

The word, thou, is parsed as a pronoun, second 
person, singular number, and in the nominative 
case. But who that can read English can not see 
that " thou''' denotes the object of the action, 
denominated punished. Look at the instance 
again : 

" Johnson, thou hast been punished with just 
severity." 

Let the old school grammarians attach whatever 
character they please to subjects, and objects, it is 
clear, that both Johnson, and thou denote the 
object acted upon. 

Having given the true meaning of the word, 
subject, it may be well enough to give that of the 
word, object, 

The word, object, says Webster, " means that 
about which any power y or any faculty is em- 
ployed." 

Now, is there not power, and is there not some 
faculty employed in punishing Johnson ? Is not 
Johnson, then, an object? But let us hear Dr. 
Webster further upon an object. In his fourth 
definition he says, 

4. " In Grammar, that which is produced, 
influenced, acted on by something else ; as, 

1. "God created the world." 

2. " Light affects the eye." 

3. " Instruction directs the mind." 

These are Mr. Webster's own examples which 
he has given in illustration of his fourth definition 
of an object. And it will be seen that he has been 
careful to collocate the words in each in a way 
which places the three nouns that denote the 
objects, in the objective case. But from the arrange- 
ment which we shall take the liberty to make of 
the words in his instances of illustration, that dis- 
tinguished grammarian may learn that we may 
have objects in the nominative case as well as in 
the objective. We shall first repeat his instances 
in the order in which he has given them : 

1. " God created the world." 

2. " The light affects the eye." 

3. " Instruction directs the mind? 

1. The world was created by God ! 

2. The eye is affected by the light ! 

3. The mind is directed by instruction ! 

Thus we find Dr. Webster's objects, world, eye, 
and mind, all in the nominative case ! Nor is this 
the only curiosity which this new arrangement 
has produced, for we find his actors, God, light, 



and instruction, all snugly boxed up in the objective 
case I 

Why do God, light, and instruction, become 
objects ? Will it be replied that they become 
objects because, " gome faculty of the mind is 
employed about them ?" The mind which has 
introduced them into these sentences, must have 
thought of them, otherwise it could not have 
brought them into sentences. Why, then, are 
they not objects in the first set of sentences as 
well as in the second ? 

1. " God created the world." 

2. " The light affects the eye." 

3. " Instruction directs the mind." 

Is not the faculty of thought employed about 
God, the light, and instruction, in the above sen- 
tences ? If not, how could the mind of Dr. 
Webster bring them into these sentences ? And, 
if this faculty is employed about them in the 
above instances, why are they not objects in the 
above as much as is in the following : 

1. The world was created by God! 

2. The eye is affected by the light / 

3. The mind is directed by instruction ! 
Now, if these three agents are made objects 

upon the ground that some mental faculty is 
employed about, them, in one instance, why not 
in two, and if in two, why not in all. ? Unless 
something pl-ausible can be shown to the con- 
trary, one is bound to concede the point. These 
three agents, then, become objects as much under 
Dr. Webster's arrangement as under ours ; conse- 
quently, each is in the nominative, and each in the 
objective case, at the same time • God is the 
performer of the act of creating ; hence in the 
nominative. God is the object about which the 
faculty of thought is employed, both by the 
author, and the reader, of the sentence j hence in 
the objective. 

The new system proposes to reject the relative 
character of things, and the dictionary import of 
words, as having nothing to do with the formation, 
of a system of grammar. The character of the 
thing is not infused into the thing's name ! Was 
it otherwise, the word, clergyman, would be clothed 
with sacerdotal robes ! If the character of the 
thing sprang from the thing into the name of the 
thing, the word sugar, would have become a 
sweet noun, and the v/ord, vinegar, a sour substan- 
tive long ago ! If the doctrine of the old system 
is true, the word, arsenic, would have slain more 
than the sword • ! No, no, this word is not rats- 
bane, though it means that virulent poison which 
rats so much dread ! What, are we told that this 
course is ridiculous ? Ridiculous as you may 
think it, it is that which the old school gramma- 
rians have pursued in the formation of the old 
theory of English grammar! They say that real 
action, real being, or real suffering infuses into 
words the verb character. The new school gram- 
marians say that the verb character is not derived 



APPEAL. 



33 



from the thing which the word may happen to 
denote ; the verb character is that innate cordictive 
attribute,tliat innate sentence-forming power which 
is connate with the word itself. If action, being, 
or suffering, is necessary to the giving of the verb 
character, how is it that '■'resembles'" is a verb!? 
Why, too, if action infuses into the word the verb 
character, is not every word which signifies action, 
a verb ! ! 

The old school grammarians say that quality 
gives the word denoting it, the adjective character. 
But the new say that the innate capacity of the 
word to be conjected both to the nominative, and 
to the objective case, is the adjective character. 
If quality gives the adjective character, why do 
not all nouns which denote qualities turn into 
adjectives!? Why, too, do not all verbs which 
denote action turn into adjectives ? Who does not 
know that every action is a quality ! ? 

The old school grammarians say that the actor 
gives the nominative case character. 

The new school grammarians say that the noun 
has an innate sentence-forming power, a power 
which the noun has in itself: they say that this 
sentence-forming power is not derived — but that 
it is an attribute which the noun has, independent 
of the relative character of the thing signified. The 
old school grammarians say that the nominative 
case is known from the fact that the noun denotes 
the actor! The new school grammarians say 
that the nominative case is known, not by the 
thing which the noun signifies, but from the exer- 
tion of an an innate sentence-forming power in 
bringing that innate sentential spirit which dis- 
tinguishes the verb, and which lies, while untouched 
by the noun, coiled up in the verb, into a full cor- 
diction, a full sentence character. The new 
reject the word, nominative as unmeaning, and 
employ the words, cordictive nouns. The phrase, 
cordictive noun, signifies that foundation fixed 
name which aids the verb to form, to create, the 
cordiction of the sentence ; as, Moses smote the 
rock. 

Here by the joint exertion of the noun, Moses, 
and the verb, smote, the cordiction, the affirmation, 
is created. 

The old school grammarians say that the object 
denoted by the noun, gives the noun the objective 
case character. The new school reject the word, 
objective, as irrelevant, vague, and perplexing. 
They also reject the entire doctrine of objects, as 
leading to confusion, and error. Instead of insti- 
tuting any distinction among nouns, upon the 
ground of their denoting actors, and objects, the 
new system founds the distinction upon the innate 
sentence-forming influence which some nouns 
exert in the production of the sentence character, 
and upon a want, a destitution-, of this innate 
sentence-forming influence in others. Hence nouns 
are divided into cordictive, and uncordictive. 



1. " God created the world." 

2. " The world was created by God." 

Why is God in the nominative in the first, but 
objective in the second ? Is it because God is the 
agent ? Surely not, for he is the agent in both. 

The word, God, is cordictive in the first, because 
it aids the verb, created, to form the cordiction, 
the affirmation, of the sentence. The word, God, 
is uncordictive in the second, because it renders 
no aid in forming the cordiction of the sentence. 
The words, the world was created, is as much a 
sentence as are the words, the world was created 
by God. 

We have undertaken to show that the theory 
of cases, which is founded upon actors, subjects, 
and objects, is a delusion. We think that we 
have met with complete success in our attempt. 
But if we have not, we trust, and hope that the 
friends of this theory, will demonstrate to the 
world our failure. We hold ourselves bound to 
reply to any candid, cogent, attack which the old 
school grammarians may make upon what we 
have advanced against their doctrine. We hesi- 
tate not to declare that neither man nor angel, can 
support one item of the ground on which this 
theory of cases is constructed. If we are wrong, 
let us know it ! 



CHAPTER VI. 



1. A pronoun is a word used instead of a noun 
to avoid the too frequent repetition of the same 
word. — Murray. 

2. A pronoun is a word used instead of a 
noun. — Bullions. 

3. A pronoun is a word used instead of a 
noun. — Goold Brown. 

4. A pronoun is a word used instead of a noun, 
and generally to avoid the too frequent repetition 
of the same word. — Kirkham. 

5. A pronoun is a word used instead of a noun 
to avoid the too frequent repetition of the same 
word. — Bradford Frazee. 

6. A Pronoun is a word used instead of a 
noun. — Pardon Davis. 

7. A pronoun is a word used instead of a 
noun. — Caleb Farnum. 

8. A pronoun is a word which supplies the 
place of a noun. — John Frost. 

1. A pronoun is a word used instead of a noun 

to avoid the too frequent repetition of the same 

word. — Murray. 

" John saw me who am your friend." 

The word, who, is not used instead of a noun — 

who is used instead of me ! And, as me is not a 

noun, who can not be a pronoun ! 



34 



APPEAL. 



The word, me, is not used to avoid the repetition 
of any word whatever — hence me is not a pro- 
noun 11 

2. "Jam he whom John called." 

Is the word, I, used to avoid the repetition of 
another word ! ? "I" is used for my name — but, 
as my name has not been used at all, how can it 
be said that "I" is used to avoid its too frequent 
repetition ! ! ? 

Whom is used, not instead of a noun, but 
instead of the word, he — hence whom is not a 
pronoun. 

3. " We told thee to come to us, which thou 
didst." 

" We" is not used to prevent the repetition of any 
word — hence, we is not a pronoun. 

" Thee" is not used to prevent the repetition of 
another word — hence, thee is not a pronoun. 

" Us" is not used to prevent the repetition of 
another word — hence, us is not a pronoun. 

"Which" is used instead of a verb — hence, which 
is much more a pro-verb than pronoun ! 

We have shown that this definition does not 
embrace the pronouns. Let us now show that it 
does embrace nouns. 

1. " This machine is ingenious ; it is an engine 
powerful in operation, and useful in effect." 

The word, engine, is used to prevent the repe- 
tition of the word, machine. Hence this common 
noun is a pronoun ! 

2. A pronoun is a word used instead of a 
noun. — Bullions. 

1. " I saw him whom John called." 

For what noun does whom stand ! ? Why, whom 
is used for the pronoun him ! I 

2. " And to furnish a test whether he is suf- 
ficiently prepared for recitation, which he can not 
be, unless he can furnish a correct and prompt 
answer to the questions proposed." (Bullion's 
English Grammar, p. 7.) 

Is " which" used instead of a noun ! ? Is not 
which used for " he is sufficiently prepared ?" 

Which, then, is here a pro-clause .' 

" It snows. I know it" 

Does not the last " it" represent the sentence — 
"It snows.'' 1 

Here, then, the word, it, is a pro-sentence .' ! 

" He returned to the city, which was known to 
me and others." 

Which here stands for returned; and, as 
returned is a verb, which, is a proverb I 

Goold Brown, Bullions, Farnum, John Frost, 
Comly,Davis, John S. Hart, and others, have reject- 
ed the last part of Murray's definition of a pronoun : 

" To avoid the too frequent repetition of the same 
word." 



This rejection lets all nouns which are used in 
the place of other nouns for any purpose whatever, 
into the family of pronouns : 

A pronoun is a word used instead of a noun ; 
as, Thomas has learned his lesson ; he is a good 
scholar. — Farnum. 

Mr. Farnum marks his, and he, as pronouns. 
Why is not the common noun, scholar, a pronoun ? 
Is not the word, scholar, used instead of the word, 
Thomas ! ? 

Thomas has learned his lesson ; he is a good 
Thomas. 

We shall be gravely told that this is not the 
sense which is intended to be expressed. We 
admit this. Still we contend that scholar is used 
for Thomas. " Scholar" is used instead of Thomas, 
to express a particular sense. And it must be 
borne in mind that these improvers of Murray, 
say nothing about the purpose for which the 
word is used instead of another. Murray is well 
guarded in this particular : he says that the word 
must be used "to avoid the too frequent repetition 
of the same word," 

We admit that scholar is not used instead of 
Thomas to avoid the repetition of Thomas. But 
it is enough for us that scholar is used instead of 
Thomas for any purpose whatever. Now, scholai 
is used instead of Thomas to express an ide;\ 
which the word Thomas could not express. By 
Mr. Murray, scholar is not a pronoun — but by his 
menders " scholar" is a pronoun ! 

A pronoun is a word used instead of a noun to 
avoid the too frequent repetition of the same word. 
Murray in rags. 

" A pronoun is a word used instead of a 
noun." 

This is Murray mended up by Goold Brown, 
Peter Bullions, John Frost, Caleb Farnum, 
Pardon Davis, John S. Hart, and others, who 
believe that " a stitch in time saves nine." 

Mr. Webster has attempted to improve the 
definition given by Murray. But we are not 
favorably impressed with Mr. Webster's change. 
This author objects, not only to the usual definition 
of a pronoun, but to the word, pronoun. He 
recommends the use of "substitute." The use 
of this name would afford little, or no relief. 
Besides, the words which are called pronouns, 
are not substitutes. They are auxiliary to, and 
not substitutes for, other words. In short, the 
true character of these words is not understood at 
all by the old school grammarians. These words 
are never used instead of a noun — nor are they 
ever used to avoid the repetition of another word. 
We can not make a display of the true character, 
and great beauty of these words here. They who 
wish to understand them are referred to Book 
II. p. 113. 



APPEAL. 



35 



CLASSIFICATION OF PRONOUNS. 

1. The utility of arrangement, of judicious 
method, in presenting any art, or science, will be 
conceded by all. But, the propriety of perplexing 
the juvenile mind, with a copious technicality, or 
even oppressing the intellect with too many philo- 
sophic distinctions, is unsupported in theory at 
least ; and we believe, without affirmative decision 
in practice. We would not, however, be under- 
stood as discarding nice distinctions ; for, it is from 
these only that the mind acquires accuracy in 
judgment, and acuteness in perception. We 
object to the making of distinctions upon mere 
possibilities. The possibility of a division line, is 
no reason for drawing it. The reason for drawing 
the line, must be sought in the advantages, derived 
from it. Distinctions should be made, if at all, 
purely to promote the good of the pupil, and the 
convenience of the teacher. Let us ask, whether 
the numerous divisions of pronouns, into personal, 

RELATIVE, INTERROGATIVE, DEMONSTRATIVE, ADJEC- 
TIVE, «fec., can be conducive to the end proposed 
in classification. What possible good can result 
from teaching a pupil to say he is a personal 
pronoun, — especially in instances in which he 
represents the name of a dumb beast; as, the lads 
saw the horse when he eat the grass. 

But some of our late commentators, wise in 
grammar, have attempted to remove this absurdity, 
by placing this distinction upon the fact that these 
pronouns are styled personal, because they carry 
the sign, the indication, with them, of their own 
person. Now, even if this reasoning was just, 
which, indeed, is so simple as to be foolish, so long 
as no utility results from the division, the term 
should be given up, and the distinction repealed. 

If this distinction which has already obtained, 
is continued, for no better reason than that of com- 
pelling the pupil to recollect in advance, that these 
pronouns distinguish their persons, why may we 
not extend the principle, and say that because these 
words carry their sexual, and numeral properties, 
they shall be called sexual, numeral, personal 
pronouns ! ! 

2. But, we have relative pronouns. Yes, not- 
withstanding all pronouns relate to the nouns 
which they represent, yet this distinctive appella- 
tion is confined to a few. Which, who, &c, are 
styled relative pronouns. But, as all the personal 
pronouns relate, they too are entitled to this nice 
distinction. For example : James saw Jane when 
he passed her. N 

Does not he relate to James, and her to Jane ? 

Finally, where is the advantage resulting from 
this very learned partition ? We answer, that 
the principal good is confusion, and absurdity 1 1 
What ! seize the generic character as ground for 
a specific classification ! Why more than insinuate 
that all pronouns are not relatives by ascribing 



the character of relative to three, or four. An 
innocent deception, indeed ! It is for no better 
reason than to fetter the pupil by perplexing the 
machinery of grammar. 

But my, and our, are called possessive adjective 
pronouns ! Yet these pronouns always allude to 
persons .' 

Who and whom are always applied to persons — 
yet these words are thrown out of the class of 
personal pronouns! The word, he, however, 
which as often denotes a dog, an ox, &c, as a 
person, is uniformly styled a. personal pronoun ! ! 

3. We have also the sublime distinction of 
interrogative pronouns. Could one be allowed the 
rule of common sense, in this case, he would con- 
clude that this class of pronouns, is those that ask 
questions. And, indeed, this use of them, is the 
reason assigned for the distinction. But we are 
bold in declaring that no pronoun is even tributary 
to interrogation. Interrogation is effected, not by 
any pronoun, but by the position of the verb in 
relation to the noun or pronouns. For example : 
Is he well, presents a question. But, he is well, 
changes the question into a declaration. 

Again — whom do you see ? 

In this instance the, interrogative character is 
derived,not from whom, but from the position of do. 
And the example is as clearly interrogative with- 
out whom as it is with it ; as, do you see ? 

Further : what will you send me to-morrow ? 

The question is raised, not by what, but by 
will ; as, will you send to-morrow ? 

Finally, if pronouns ask questions, the verb 
does not. For, it would confuse to have two ques- 
tions in the same mono, in the same breath. But, 
if the verb does not ask, why move it from its 
declaratory position ? The pronoun denotes the 
thing concerning which the question is put ; as, 
whom did you see ? did you see whom ? 

Are we asked why whom comes before the verb ? 
We answer, that it conies before the verb, not 
because it asks the question which is put; but 
because it is in accordance with the genius of the 
language so far as it respects whom. Even in 
declaratory sentences, whom must fall before the 
verb ; as he is the lad whom I saw. 

What did you read ? 

What alludes to identity. And so far as the 
interrogative character of the sentence might be 
affected by a change in the position of what, what 
might receive a post position ; as, did you read 
what? 

We are told that interrogative pronouns are 
those which are used in asking. The assertion 
is wrong. This implies that there are certain 
pronouns which are mere means of asking, or 
interrogating. The most that can be said of pro- 
nouns in connection with the subject of interroga- 
tion, is that they, as well as nouns, may be used 
when questions are asked. But as one pronoun 
may be used, so far as the interrogative character 



36 



APPEAL. 



is concerned, as well as another, either all, or no 
pronouns should be styled interrogative. Is lie well ? 
Whom or what did you see ? 

But admitting our position to be fallacious; 
granting the existence of a class of pronouns, 
which actually gives the interrogative cast; yet 
as no advantage can be derived from the division, 
let this distinction be repealed. 

Why should these pin-pointed non-essentials 
which commenced in ancient fancy, logical spleen, 
and literary reveries, be forced into the heart of 
grammatical science, to the burden of the teacher, 
to the perplexity of the learner, and to the disgrace 
of modern intellection? 

" COMPOUND RELATIVE PRONOUNS." 

" Henry purchased what he wanted." 

That, and which can be substituted for what-- 
hence what is a compound pronoun ! ? We deny, 
however, that which, and that can be substituted 
for what. Is the parsing of that, and which, a 
solution of what ! ! ? 

" Henry got what he wanted." 

Henry got that which he wanted. 

In what way is what parsed ? Why, what is 
not parsed at all — it is rejected, banished from the 
sentence, and excluded from the process of solu- 
tion ! That, and which, are parsed — but poor 
what, is exiled for the crime of a compound 
character ! ! If the parsing of that, and which is 
the parsing of what, the parsing of a word is 
entirely different from our notions of parsing ! 
D. agrees to board M. for six months. And, to 
comply with his engagement, he kicks M. out of 
his house, and takes in S. and T. whom he says, 
he has substituted for M. ! ! ! ! This is certainly 
according to grammar, if not to law and logic ! ! 

No, no — we want you to parse the word,what, 
not to throw it out of the sentence in which it is 
grammatically used ! ! Can you do it ? You can 
not. 

The word, what, is never a pronoun. It is 
generally an adjective, not a pronoun. This is 
demonstrated by rendering the sentences in which 
what occurs, plenary. 

" Henry purchased what he wanted." 

That is, Henry purchased what thing it was 
which he wanted. 

2. " But they understood not what he spake unto 
them." 

Here that, and which are parsed, and what 
thrown out ! 

But the plenary state of this sentence is a sure 
preventive against this course : that, and which 
cannot be substituted for what. 

But they understood not what things they were 
which he spake unto them. — John x. 6. 

Here what must be parsed as an adjective. 
Why ? because it is an adjective. Here the trans- 
lator has rendered the sentence plenary, which 



shows the true character of " what" in every 
instance except in those in which it is used in the 
sense of partly, where it is an adverb; as, "what 
with the fire, and what with the cloak, we keep 
ourselves warm." 

That is, partly with the fire, and partly with 
the cloak, we keep ourselves warm. 

We shall say nothing of compound personal 
pronouns ! ! 

For Pronouns see Book II., page 113. 



CHAPTER VII. 

NUMBER, PERSON, AND GENDER. 

Number is the consideration of an object ; as, 
one or more. — Murray. 

Numbers are modifications that distinguish unity 
from plurality. — Goold Brown. 

Mr. Murray says that number is a consideration 
of an object. Now, if number is a consideration 
of an object, it follows that a consideration of an 
object is number ! The same author says that 
there are two numbers; singular, and plural. As 
number is a consideration of an object, the singular 
number is one consideration of an object; as, book. 
And the plural number is two, or more, consider- 
ations ; as, book, book, book 1 ! 

Number, says Goold Brown, are modifications 
which distinguish unity from plurality ; as, sheep, 
deer, swine, which, that, mine yours, hers '. ! ! 

Have the nouns, and pronouns, here presented, 
any modifications which distinguish unity from 
plurality ? But will it be said that these worda 
have no number ? " A sheep came to us." 

Sheep is a noun in the singular number; but 
has it any form by which it distinguishes unity 
from plurality ! ? 

" The six sheep came to us." 

Here sheep is plural number, and that too with- 
out any new modification ! ! 

The fact that a definition includes a majority 
of the kind, or race, is no proof of its soundness. 
A definition to be good, must embrace all which 
is intended, without any thing more. What a 
suitable shoe is to a foot, a definition is to a thing, 
or class of things. If the shoe is too large it is 
not a. fit ; if it is too small it is not a. fit. So with 
a definition — if it does not include all the kind, it 
is not a proper definition ; and, if it includes too 
many, it is not a proper definition. Mr. G. B.'s 
shoe seems to be rather small for the foot for 
which it has been made — there are several toes 
which cannot be got into it ! ! As the work of an 
apprentice, the fit would be decent ; as that of a 
journeyman, it would speak no praise, but as the 
production of the master workman himself jt is con- 
temptible ! But, however bad the fit, no hopes of 
improvement, or change, can be entertained — the 



APPEAL. 



37 



shoe is taken from the last, the apron dislodged, 
and the cobbler has risen from his bench with the 
valedictory — " his finished labors ! !" 

The number belongs not to the noun, but to the 
things denoted by the noun. The expression of 
the number is made by the noun. In the new 
system, this expxxssion is denominated numerdic- 
tion. (Numeros, number, and dictio, speech, 
expression. Book II. p. 130.) 

II. PERSON. 

As the word, person, is generally applied to a 
human being, it seems improper to employ it as 
the British grammarians use it in their system of 
grammar. "A mad dog followed a lady some dis- 
tance last evening." 

Here the lady, dog, distance, and evening, are 
all persons together ! And they are all of the 
same family, for each is third person ! ! What do 
grammarians mean by person ? We know what 
common people mean by person — but what do 
grammarians mean by it ? 

Mr. Murray has objected to the question — and 
though he has been a long time upon the stand, 
nothing has ever been drawn from him respecting 
this point ! Mr. Goold Brown, however, in draw- 
ing his " First Lines of English Grammar," has 
run out one of his lines to this very point ! '■'■per- 
sons in grammar,' 1 '' says he, " are modifications 
that distinguish the speaker, the hearer, and the 
person, or thing merely spoken of." 

(Jane,) [we say that] (the teacher punished 
Jane) (last evening.) 

Now, Jane, in the first mono, is second person, 
but has this noun any form indicating that it 
denotes the hearer ? Jane, in the third mono, is 
of the third person — but has this noun any form 
which shows that this female is here spoken of! 
Both nouns have the same form. 

Teacher is third person — but has this noun any 
modification indicating that the teacher is merely 
spoken of— just touched ! But this definition of 
person, is to be sustained by we! We has no 
modification, no form, which denotes that it means 
the speakers! We surely has a form;' so has 
every other word — no word can be found which 
has not some modification! But, it is not the 
form of we, but the signification, the very mean- 
ing of we, which expresses the fact that the per- 
sons alluded to, are the speakers ! We seems to 
us to be the plural form of /, as J is the singular 
form of we ! Do we change from / to we to 
express the first person, cr do we do it to denote 
plurality 1 

The old school grammarians say that there are 
three persons ; namely, first, second and third. 
The first person, say they, denotes the speaker. 
The second, the person spoken to, and the third, 
the person spoken of. 

Now, let us see in what way these persons will 



appear when called into actual service. A man 
may be a brave soldier if we judge of his courage 
merely from -his appearance as derived from his 
martial equipage. So too, principles may appear 
quite philosophic when judged of from the verbal 
garb only, in which they are presented. But, as 
the field of battle is the only place for testing a 
man's martial prowess, so examples are the only 
one for ascertaining a principle's philosophic 
application. 

1. "Jam quite sick this evening." 

2. " Thou art quite a stranger." 

3. " They have just called on us. 

I is a pronoun in the nominative case — to am. 
Why, because 1 is the subject of am ! And what 
is the subject of a verb denned to be ! " The 
subject is the thing principally spoken of; !" It 
follows, then, if lis the subject of the verb, that it 
is of the third person i ! ! 

1. " The subject is the tiling spoken of!" 

2. " The third person is the thing spoken of!" 
When a man says — "I am quite sick," does he 

not make this affirmation respecting himself — does 
he not speak of himself? "i am quite sick this 
evening.'' 

Evening is a noun, third person, singular 
number, and in the objective case after on 
understood. 

This we say is the manner in which " evening" 
is parsed. But, that the parsing of this word may 
comport with the rules laid down by the old school 
grammarians, it should be parsed in the nomina- 
tive case. These philosophers tell us that " even- 
ing" is of the third person — they also inform us 
that the third person is the thing spoken of — they 
also inform us that the thing spoken of is the 
subject — and they also say that the subject is the 
nominative case ! ! Which of the two words 
denotes what is principally spoken of! is it I, or is 
it evening ? if it is I, why is not this pronoun of 
the third person ? If i" does not denote what is 
spoken of, I is not the subject — and, if not the 
subject, why, why, how, hoio, is it in the nomina- 
tive case ! ? But, if it is not " evening," why, 
how, is " evening" third person ? and, as " even- 
ing" is third person, (the subject) how is it in the 
objective, since the name of the third person is in 
the nominative case ! ! 

2. Thou art made into a stranger " by long 
absence." 

Thou denotes the person spoken to, and on this 
account this pronoun is second person. 

" Stranger" is of the third person ! But do 
not stranger, and thou mean the same being, 
the same individual ? If, then, thou, is the 
second person, because it denotes the person 
spoken to, by parity of reasoning is not stranger 
the second, also ! ? 

In what case is thou ? In the nominative. But 
is not stranger more particularly the subject than 
thou ? "Why so?" Because stranger is of the 



APPEAL. 



third person — the third person is spoken of— the 
subject is spoken of, not to ; and the subject is 
the nominative case ! ! " How ! what ! the sub- 
ject is the thing spoken of, not to, and the subject 
is the nominative case. How, then, c&nthou be in 
the nominative case ! ?" This is something which 
we cannot solve ! There is a man,* however, who 
has turned, not grammar maker, but grammar 
mender — him, we will take the liberty of intro- 
ducing to you again. We ought, perhaps, to beg 
the pardon of Goold Brown for omitting hitherto 
to say that he is a firm orthodox old school gram- 
marian. But while he gives his sanction to the 
principles, and the materials of the old system, 
he thinks that the arrangement of the materials, 
is somewhat faulty. That is, he believes that the 
British scholars have constructed the calf upon the 
true principles of animal life ; and from genuine 
animal matter, but from some defect in the arrange- 
ment of the creature's legs he has been a sort of 
cripple from his birth ! 
We extract from his First Lines : 

" RULE II. THE NOMINATIVE." 

"A noun, or pronoun which is the subject of a 
verb, must be in the nominative case : as, / know, 
thou sayest it : says thy life the same." 

Here we have the authority of 'a fixed formal rule, 
making the subject, the thing spoken of, the nomi- 
native case ! And strange to tell, in this very rule, 
/ and thou, which the author parses one of the first, 
and the other of the second person, we find intro- 
duced as an illustration of a subject, which all have 
defined to be the thing spoken of. 1 '. '. 

" There are three persons," says G. B. ; " the 
first, the second, and the third." 

1. " The first person is that which denotes the 
speaker ; as, I, Paul, have written it." 

2. " The second person is that which denotes 
the hearer ; as, Robert, who did this ?" 

3. " The third person is that which denotes the 
person, or thing that is merely spoken of? as, 
James loves his book.' 1 '' " Goold Brown's First 
Lines." 

Now, the above lines seem so completely to run 
into each other that it is not an easy task to dis- 
tinguish them. 

Line First. — The first person is that which 
denotes the speaker ; as, I, Paul, have writ- 
ten it. 

Mr. Murray says — The first person is the 
speaker. But our compiler, G. B., says that the 
first person is not the speaker ! ! But we must 
defer making any reflections upon the verbal 
inaccuracies of our author. It is not our intention 
to prove that he is actually crazy, but we think, 
without intending to reciprocate the charge of 
insanity, however, that we shall not find it dificult, 
though disagreeable, to satisfy our readers, in 
general, that the use of the straight jacket might 



exert a very salutary influence upon his future 
lines ! 

The first person denotes the speaker; as, I, 
Paul, have written it. 

Now, the compiler commences this line in the 
following definition — 

" Persons, in grammar, are modifications that 
distinguish the speaker, the hearer, and the person 
or thing merely spoken of." But where is the 
modification which enables the noun, Paul, to 
distinguish the speaker!? This distinguishing 
modification of the noun, happens to be the pro- 
noun, I! / That our author should give the word, 
Paul, in illustration of the first person, can be 
passed off without any great prejudice against his 
right reason. The proximity of the words, I and 
Paul, so much confused his local vision, that his 
mental was led off in a wrong direction ; and he 
happened to run his line, in this case, somewhat 
crooked .' 

" I am Paul." 

Here our author says that Paul is of the third 
person ! ! And we presume that this noun has a 
form in this construction which indicates that 
Paul himself is here merely spoken of! The word, 
however, has the same appearance in this case 
which it has in the first ! But, then, what signifies 
the frame-work appearance of this, or any other 
word ! ? — It is not the external form of which our 
author means to speak — he alludes to the modifi- 
cation of the word ! ! • But, what modification ? 
O, one of his own creation, of course ! What 
better proof than this that our author is a fit sub- 
ject for the kind of garment we have mentioned ? 
The same word having but one form, without the 
least change whatever, is represented as having 
three distinct significant forms, and that one of 
these forms is employed to distinguish the speaker, 
another the hearer^ and the third the thing merely 
spoken of. 

1st. 

1. I, Paul, have written it. (First form — 
Paul '.) 

2d. 

2. Paul, thou art beside thyself — much learn- 
ing has made thee mad. (Second form — Paul !) 

3d. 

3. " I am Paul." (Third form— Paul .') 
Festus attempted to account for madness which 

he ascribed to Paul. — But we attempt a very 
different task. — We attempt to account for our 
author's giving this great man's name three 
separate, distinct, significant, differential, personal 
forms in the above instances — and we ascribe it 
to that kind of madness which Festus attempted 
in vain to fix upon him whose name has appeared 
so multiform in our author's quixotic vision, while 
at the same time in that of every other person, 
this word constantly appears perfectly mono- 
form ! 

3. The third person is that which denotes the 



APPEAL. 



39 



person, or tiling - merely spoken of; as, James 
loves his book. — Goold Brown. 

We can see clearly that book falls under this 
definition. The hook is " merely spoken of." 
But how it is that James who is principally, 
mainly, and particularly spoken of, is to be 
brought within the scope of this definition, is not 
bo clear. 

James is more than " merely spoken of .'" He 
]s made the central point of thought. Where is 
our author's definition which is to give the third 
person to a noun, or pronoun that is in the nomi- 
native case ! ? Every noun, and every pronoun in 
the nominative case is deprived of the third 
person ! This is the work of Goold Brown, but 
it is not that of right reason .' Our author pre- 
sumed that by the use of merely he could exclude 
I, and we, from the third person. And we are 
almost ready to admit that he has done this. For, 
without the word, merely, our author's definition 
of the third person, like that of Murray, and 
others, must embrace i, and we, since i, and we, 
ever denote the central point of thought ; as, 1 
have written it, [I, (who am Paul,) have written 
it.] / have seen him. We are to return to the 
city. 

But, what has our author done in his successful 
essay to exclude I, and we from the third person ? 
He has robbed he, she, it, they, and thousands, and 
thousands of other words of the third person ! ! ! .' 
Thus, to enable two trees to stand firmly in one 
place, he has let in a stream, a flood, which in its 
fury has destroyed whole forests by sapping the 
terrene foundation upon which his predecessors 
had placed them ! ! Now, this may not be insan- 
ity — but it looks like giving too much for the 
whistle ! 

We will now illustrate our author's definitions 
by other examples : 

1. " The first person denotes the speaker; as, 
He spake unto them by parables !" 

2. The second person is that which denotes the 
hearer ; as, He spake unto them by parables, He 
said to me, come, and see !" 

3. " The third person is that which denotes the 
person or thing that is merely spoken of; as, He 
was punished by me.'" 

Here, by the word, me, the speaker speaks of 
himself! Will it be pretended that a word can 
denote a person, or thing, principle, or fact without 
speaking of him, or it ! ? Thus in the following — 
thou denotes the individual who is spoken of, and 
that, too, as the central point of thought — 

" Thou art sick." 

Of what do we make this affirmation? of 
nothing ? This is an affirmation to a person, and it 
is an affirmation of a person. Therefore, thou is 
of the second, and of the third person, at the same 
time ! 

The use of the word, person, in grammar, is 
bad. Farmers do not attempt to plough with an 



axe — nor do they essay to cut grass with a cart. 
They employ instruments that are adapted to the 
nature of the operations which they wish to per- 
form. Why do not grammarians imitate the 
farmer ? For this simple reason — the farmer 
knows what he is about, but the grammarians are 
ignorant of what they are at. When a farmer 
wishes to cut grass, he takes his scythe. But if 
the farmer did not know what he wanted to do, he 
would be as likely to take an improper instrument 
into his field as a proper one. Grammarians have 
taken the words, first person, second person, and 
third person, because they do not know what they 
wish to express ! "Ah ! how does it happen, then, 
that they have made these distinctions ]" These 
distinctions have not been made to express any 
just principles which make a part or parcel, of 
the constructive philosophy of our language ; they 
have been made that grammarians might have a 
foundation upon which to place two or three false 
rules for correcting bad English. What is person ? 
Hear, hear ! " Persons, in grammar, are modifi- 
cations of nouns, which distinguish the speaker, 
hearer, and thing that is merely spoken of." Now, 
this we have shown to be a mere farce ! 

Let us give a moment's attention to the ety- 
mology of the word, person. The word, person, 
is made from the Latin, persono, to sound through. 
But what has " to sound through" to do with 
any part of grammar ! ? 

Let us spend a short time with the origin of the 
application of the word, person, to grammar. 

In ancient times the dramatic performers wore 
masks. Each actor had a mask suited to the par- 
ticular character of the part which he took. The 
voice of the wearer of the mask, was sent through 
the mouth of the mask, which was so constructed 
that it became louder on its passage through it. 
These masks were denominated persona, from 
persono, to sound through. 

The word, persona, which is from persono, to 
sound through, being applied to the mask from 
the circumstance that persono meant to sound 
through, was next applied to the wearer of the 
mask. 

In ancient drama, three persons only, were per- 
mitted to take part in the dialogue at the same 
time. Hence the origin of three persons in gram- 
mar ! ! ! Had the laws of ancient drama allowed 
four, or six persons, to participate at the same 
time, the old theory of English grammar would 
have had four, or six persons ! ! ! ! 

But how came the distinctions of first person, 
second person, and third person, a portion of the 
old theory of grammar ? These distinctions were 
introduced through the influence exerted by the 
rules of the ancient drama also, over the modern 
art of English grammar ! 

The ancients fancied that the speaker in the 
dialogue, held the most important place — hence 
they denominated him first person ! 



40 



APPEAL. 



2. They imagined the individual addressed, to be 
next in importance to the speaker — hence he was 
called second person ! 

3. And every other thing or being that was 
introduced, they called third person ! 

First — It is persono, to sound through i ! 

Secondly — It is persona, a mask, or that through 
which the sound was sent ! 

Thirdly — Persona is applied to the man, woman, 
or boy, who sent the sound through ! ! 

Hence, fourthly, — this persono persona system 
is applied to the old theory of English grammar s 

That the ancients had no good ground on 
which to apply persona either to the mask, or to 
the actor who sent the sound through its mouth, 
is obvious. But as the ancients set the example, 
it was but natural that the writers of the old 
theory should apply this word (persona, person,) 
to their grammar mask ! 1 The whole theory is a 
mask, so fixed upon the English language, that no 
one can perceive its true construction. But is it 
not somewhat singular that the ancients applied 
the word, persona, to all the masks ? Had they 
restricted persona to the mask of the speaker, we 
could see a little philosophy in their course. 
Persona is from persono, to sound through. Did 
the second person send a sound through his 
mask ! ? Did the third person send a sound 
through his mask ! ! ? 

Again. Upon what ground can the speaker be 
considered of more importance than the audience ? 
In Divine worship, is the clergyman more import- 
ant than his audience — and is an audience, or 
clergyman more important than God, of whom 
the preacher speaks to his hearers ! ! ? 

Is it not as important to have a theme as it is 
to have a speaker ? Is it not as important to have 
a hearer as it is to have a speaker ? The distinc- 
tion made by the ancients oi first, second, and third, 
was a matter of fancy, and not oi philosophy. As 
the ancients have the sole credit of this part of the 
mask theory, let them have the sole benefit of it. 
Let us strip these masks from our language, 
whose true genius they have so long hid. 

But who can account for the application of per- 
son to verbs ? 

Did the actions expressed by the verbs, wear 
masks ! ? Did the actions, and actors also wear 
masks in ancient drama ! ■ ? 

Can any one account for the application oi first, 
second, and third, to the person of verbs ! ? Was 
one action considered so much more import- 
ant than the others that it was distinguished by 
the phrase, first person ! ? Reladictive inflections, 
Book II. p. 182. 

THE SUBSTITUTE. 

All the things, mentioned, or implied, in a sen- 
tence, fall under two general denominations, 
viz : — 



Prosochists, and 
Themes, [objects.] 

1. Prosochist is compounded of the Greek, 
prosocheia, attention, and ist, one who applies in 
practice what is mentioned in the principal part 
of the word of which ist, is a suffix. 

The prosochist is that person whom the noun 
itself designates by means of an audient intonation^ 
an audient indication or an audient comma, as the 
particular individual to whose notice the par-e- 
theme presents the different objects mentioned or 
implied, in the sentence ; as, Master, I have brought 
unto thee my son. (Master.) 

2. Theme is made from the Greek, thema ; and, 
as, thema is made from tithemi, to sit, or place, 
theme may properly be defined to mean whatever 
is presented to the notice of a person. In this 
system of grammar, theme means any thing which 
is presented to the notice of the prosochist ; as, 
Master, i" have brought my son unto thee. [I, son^ 
thee.] 

The themes presented to the notice of the pros- 
ochist, are divided into 

1. Par-e-theme, 

2. Pros-o-theme, and 

3. Pan-ta-theme. 

1. PAR-E-THEME. 

The par-e-theme is the person who is designated, 
or distinguished by a pronoun, as the particular 
individual who presents the different themes in the 
sentence, to the notice of the prosochist : as, 

1. Master, / have brought unto thee my son 
which hath a dumb spirit. (/.) 

2. Master, my son has been brought unto thee 
by me. (Me.) 

[The prefix part of par-e-theme, is made from 
the Greek, par-e-cho, to exhibit.] 

2. PROS-O-THEME. 

The pros-o-theme is the prosochist presented to 
his own notice, which is always done by means 
of a pronoun; as, 

Master, I have brought unto thee my son. 
(Thee.) 

[The prefix part oi pros-o-theme, is the first part 
of prosochist, and signifies, in this abridged state, 
that the pros-o-theme is made out of the pros- 
ochist.] 

Master, I have brought unto thee my son. 
[Thee.] 

Thee is not used for the purpose of addressing 
the Master, the second time : thee is used by the 
par-e-theme to call the attention of the Master 
to himself as the person to whom the father had 
brought the son. > 

3. PANTA-THEME, 

The panta4heme is an object which is presented 



APPEAL. 



41 



to. the prosochist in no light, in no character 
except that of a theme ; as, 

Master, I have brought unto thee my son which 
hath a dumb spirit. (Son, which, spirit.) [Panta, 
all.] 

The pantetheine is all theme. In the par-e- 
tJieme, there is a presenter — an exhibiter : in the 
pros-o-themc, there is a pros-o-c/nst — an atten- 
tionist. But in the pant-a-theme, there is nothing 
but a theme : hence, whatever is presented to the 
prosochist, as a mere theme, is a jw?2ta-theme ; as, 

Master, I have brought unto thee my son which 
hath a dumb spirit. 

The son and the spirit exhibit nothing to the 
Master, the prosochist of the sentence. Neither 
the son nor the spirit is in any way, an attentionist : 
indeed, neither is any thing but a theme. 

Master, I have brought my son unto thee. 

The relation of the things which are introduced 
into a sentence cither by direct expression, or by 
obvious implication, must secure the admiration 
of all. Nothing is more simple than this speech 
relation ; yet nothing is more philosophic : and, 
although the whole lies within the grasp of a mere 
child, Grammar makers do not understand it. 

In an English Grammar, compiled by Goold 
Brown, I find the following sentence : — 

" The distinction of persons, is founded on the 
different relations which the objects mentioned* 
bear to the discourse itself." 

" Moses smote the rock with his rod." 

I should be much pleased to learn what relation 
Moses, the rock, and the rod bear to this sentence ! 

That the former of a sentence bears a relation 
to it, is obvious — and, perhaps, in vocal instances, 
the person also to whom the sentence is addressed, 
bears a relation to the sentence ; as, 

Master, I have brought unto thee my son. 

It is obvious that the Master bore an audience 
relation to this sentence when it was addressed to 
him. Nor is it at all difficult to see that the father, 
who styles himself 7, bore a formative relation to 
this sentence when he addressed it to the Master. 
But it requires more penetration than falls to the 
lot of most persons, to see what possible relation 
the son bore to this sentence ! The son did not 
form the sentence — nor is there any intimation 
in it that he gave audience to it. 

" Moses smote the rock with his rod." 

What possible relation do Moses, the rock, and 
the rod bear to this sentence ? 

Moses had been dead years before the sentence 
was formed. I have just constructed the sentence. 
And is it possible, that Moses, who departed this 
life years, yea, centuries, ago, has found his way 
back from mother dust, and, in some mysterious 
manner attached* himself to this proposition ? 

Whether the rock from which Moses brought 
the copious stream, has decayed out of being, I 
will not pretend to say ; but even if it is yet in 



existence, it can hardly be supposed to have left: 
its terrene bed for a place in this verbal frame- 
work. 

I will not j pretend that the rod, employed by 
Moses in performing this standing miracle, was 
perishable. But, if it has found its way from the 
streaming' rock into this sentence which I have 
just formed, it is obvious that the days of miracles, 
are not yet over. 

The distinction of persons, is not founded upon 
relation of any kind, but upon an ancient dramatic 
practice among the Greeks, and Romans. Of this 
practice, and the distinction of the three persons 
in the old Grammars founded upon it, I have 
already spoken. 

Although the distinction of persons, could have 
been founded upon what may be called the speech 
relation which one thing bears to another, it never 
could have been founded upon any relation which 
the things mentioned in a sentence, bear to the 
sentence itself. 

The speech relation en which the distinction of 
persons, could have been founded, is so simple that 
it is illustrated by almost every business transac- 
tion among men. For instance, take a scene in 
buying, and selling dry goods. 

1. There are goods to be shown. 

2. There is a person to examine them — to give 
attention to them. 

3. There is a person to show them. 

Master, I have brought unto thee my son 

1. The Master is called on to give attention to 
me. Master, look on me. Master, I, have done 
so and so. I, then, am the first theme, the first 
object, the first article of goods to which the 
attention of the Master, is directed : I show 
myself first. 

2. The Master is next directed to look upon 
himself. 

. Master, I have brought unto thee. 

That is, Master, look on me as the bringer, and 
on thyself as the person to whom I bring. Now, 
as the master directs his attention to me, I bear 
an objective relation, not to the sentence, but the 
Master himself. And, as he turns his attention to 
himself as the person to whom I bring the son, he 
bears an objective relation to himself : he becomes 
the theme or object of his own attention. 

Having called the attention of the Master to 
myself as the bringer, and to himself as the person 
to whom I had brought, I next exhibit to him the 
son as the person whom I brought. Hence the 
son becomes an object, or a theme of the Master's 
attention, or notice. 

The general relation of the Master to me, him- 
self, and the son, is that of an examiner — of an 
attentionist. Hence he is denominated the pros- 
ochist — the attentionist. And, as every thing to 
which he gives attention, must bear an objective, 



42 



APPEAL. 



a themative, relation to him, J, himself, and the son, 
are objects, or themes of his notice. 

Wherever speech is, there are these four rela- 
tions, viz ; — 

1. The Prosochistic — Master, 

2. The Par-e-themic—I, 

3. The Pros-o-themic — thee, 

4. The Panta-themic — son. 

No sentence can be formed without a prosochist ; 
nor can any sentence be constructed without a 
par-e-theme. 

These characters, however, are not always men- 
tioned. For instance : — 

I Paul beseech you. 

Here, the prosochist is not mentioned ; but as 
the sentence is addressed to somebody, the pros- 
ochist must exist in idea ; as, 

Corinthians, I Paul beseech you. 

In the following 1 , the prosochist is not named : — 
, I have brought my son unto thee. 

In the following, the par-e-theme is not ex- 
pressed : — 

Master, this son has been brought unto thee, . 

In the following, the implied par-etheme is 
expressed : — 

Master, this son has been brought unto thee 
by me. 

A DIAGRAMIC ILLUSTRATION OP THE FOUR SPEECH 
RELATIONS WHICH THE THINGS MENTIONED, OR 
IMPLIED IN A SENTENCE, BEAR TO EACH OTHER. 




III. GENDER. 

Gender belongs, not to words, but to the beings 



denoted by words. Hence it is ridiculous to speali 
of words as he nouns, and she nouns ! 

Gender is the distinction of sex. — Murray. 

Gender is the distinction of sex. — John S-. 
Hart. 

Gender is a distinction of nouns with regard to 
sex. — Bullions. 

Some say gender is a distinction of sex. 

Others say that gender is a distinction of nouns, 
Which is right ? 

Genders are modifications that distinguish 
objects in regard to sex.— Goold EroWn. 

Modifications of what? Modifications of nouns, 
or of animals ? 

From the nature of the case, we presume that 
Mr. Brown means to say, that genders are the 
sexual modifications of animals ! But from the 
following statement which we find under the 
nineteenth page of his Grammar, it is obvious that 
we are wrong in our presumption : 

" Nouns have modifications of four kind3 ; 
namely, Persons, Numbers, Genders, and Cases." 

Hence Mr. Brown also makes he nouns, andj she 
nouns ! 

" There are three genders, the masculine, the 
feminine, and the neuter." 

The masculine distinguishes male animals; the 
feminine, females ; the neuter, things destitute of 
sex. — .John Frost. 

Would not the following be more in accordance 
with nature ? 

The masculine gender belongs to males — the 
feminine, to females, and the neuter to nothing at 
all ! ! ! 

Gender is a modification of the nouns to dis- 
tinguish the sexes. — Frazee. 

Names have two genders, the masculine, and. 
feminine. — Frazee. 

That is, names have two sexes. A name of the 
masculine sex, denotes a being of the masculine 
sex ; as, John. 

A noun of the female sex denotes a being of the 
female sex ; as, Jane I '. 

Mr. Frazee, too, divides nouns into he names, 
and she names ! 

Is there any difference between the words, 
gender, and sex ? Does not gender mean sex ? 
How often have we been made to feel for young 
ladies, who in their parsing process, have been 
compelled to give the sex of nouns ! 

The gender belongs to the animals themselves — 
hence it should not be treated of as though it 
belongs to the words denoting the animals. 

The diction, the expression, the indication, of 
the gender, belongs to the words. This indication 
is denominated. 

Genediciion. "' 

The genediction of a noun, or pronoun is the 
expression of the gender of the being which these 
words denote. (Book II., p. 130.) 



APPEAL. 



43 



CHAPTER VIII. 

NOUNS COMMON AND PROrER. 

The phrase, "common noun," suggests the idea 
of an uncommon one — and the syllabane, "proper 
noun,' 1 suggests the idea of an improper one ! ! 

If "city" is a common noun, "Philadelphia''' is 
an uncommon noun ! ! And, if " Philadelphia''' is 
a proper noun, "city" is an improper noun ! ! 

What is a proper noun ? 

A proper noun is the name applied to an 
individual ; as, Washington, Albany, Hudson. — 
Bullions. 

A common noun is the name applied to all things 
of the same sort ; as, man, chair, table, book. — Bul- 
lions. 

Does not the word Washington, apply to all 
Washingtons ! ? Why, then, is not Washington 
common ? 

Is there a Washington in being- to whom the 
word, Washington, does not apply ? Not one — 
hence "Washington" is a common noun! A 
common noun applies to all. 

Is there a Hudson to which the word, Hudson, 
does not apply ? Not one — "Hudson," then is a 
common noun ! ! 

Does not the word. Albany, apply to all Alba- 
nies ! ? "Albany," then, is a common noun ! 

The word, John, is denominated a proper noun. 
But does not this word apply to all Johns ! ? Let 
it be granted that there are five thousand Johns 
in the world. Does not the word, "John," apply 
to all the Johns ! ? Why, then, is not this proper 
noun a common one I ? 

What is the meaning of the word, proper? 
Proper means appropriated. Proper is made 
from the Latin, proprius, which signifies appro- 
priated. 

His conduct is proper. That is, his conduct is 
that which is appropriated to these occasions. 

Let us now see if Mr. Bullions's common nouns 
are not proper nouns. 

" Man, chair, table, book." 

Is not " man " appropriated ? That is, is not 
this word applied, fixed, to a particular race? 
Surely. This common noun, then, is a proper 
noun ! The word, man, not applicable to books, to 
trees, to houses, to rivers. Why ! Because this 
word is already appropriated to the human race. 
The noun which has not a fixed application is the 
one which can be called common. For instance, 
if it is supposed that morphit is a word, and that 
it may be applied to every thing in the universe, 
even to the universe itself, morphit gives the true 
idea of a common sign, a common noun. As 
" morphit " would not be appropriated, it would be 
common, applicable to all. But is "man " a com. 
mon noun, a universal name ? nothing like it. 



" Chair" a common name ! Is not this name 
appropriated already ? Does chair mean a table ? 
No, Does chair mean a house ? No. This word 
is appropriated, fixed in its application ! Chair, 
then, is a proper noun .' .' 

And is not " book " fixed, appropriated, in its 
application. — Or is this word common to all 
things ? Book, is appropriated, fixed in its appli- 
cation. Book, then, is a proper noun, an appro- 
priated name. 

Proper names are the names appropriated to 
individuals ; as, George. Murray. 

A proper nnine, then, is an appropriated name. 
But, say the old school grammarians, it is a name 
appropriated to an individual. 

There is no name in the English language, 
which is appropriated, fixed, confined, to an indi- 
vidual. The word, George, is not appropriated to 
an individual : this name is applied to thousands 
— to all the Georges in being / 

1. If any noun is appropriated, fixed, to an indi- 
vidual is not the word, glove, in the following in- 
stance appropriated to an individual. 

My glove. 

Is this word, as here used, applied to all gloves ? 

2. Is not the common noun, son, in the follow- 
ing instance, appropriated to an individual ? 

" Thou art my son in whom I am well pleased." 
Does the word, son, here mean all sons / ? 
We have attempted to show that the terms in the 
old theory, are neither technical in their character, 
nor correct in their application, — that the think- 
ing is far from just, and the reasoning far from 
sound ; and that the definitions, and classifications, 
are unnatural, arbitrary. And who that examines 
the subject can say that the formers, and menders, 
of this theory, have not subverted the truth, 
diverted technical means, and even inverted the 
natural mode of using these means. 



CHAPTER IX. 

OF THE ADJECTIVE. 

1. An adjective is a word added to a substantive 
to express its quality ; as, An industrious man, A 
virtuous woman. — Murray. 

This definition is founded upon two things, 
namely, addition, and quality. 

2. An adjective is a word used to express some 
quality or property of a noun, or to show the 
extent of its signification ; as, good, wise, this, 
that, one, two. — Comly. 

This definition is not founded upon addition ; 
but upon the fact that a word is used to express 
some quality of a noun, or to show the extent of 
the noun's signification. 

3. An adjective is a word added to a noun or 



44 



APPEAL. 



pronoun, to express its quality; as, a good man, a 
pleasant day. — Hubbard. 

This definition is placed on the same pillars 
which tremble under Murray's, viz. addition, and 
quality. 

4. An adjective is a word added to a noun to 
express its quality ; as, a good boy. — Bullions. 

The keystone in this frame-work, is addition, 
and quality. 

5. An adjective is a word added to a noun, or 
pronoun, and generally expresses quality; as, a 
wise man ; a new book, — you two are diligent — 
Goold Brown. 

According to this definition, the fact that a word 
is added to a noun or pronoun, renders it an 
adjective. 

6. An adjective is a word added to a noun to 
express its quality or kind, or to restrict its mean- 
ing ; as, a good man, a bad man, a free man, an 
unfortunate man, one man, forty men. — Kirkham. 

This definition is placed upon three things, viz. 
addition, quality, and restriction. 

7. An adname {adjective) is a word added to a 
name or substantive, to show the quality, kind, 
class or condition of the object which the name or 
substitute represents. (No example.) — Pierce. 

8. An adjective is a word which expresses the 
quality of a noun ; as, a good boy. — Lennie. 

This definition is placed upon one pillar, viz. 
quality. 

9. An adjective is a describing, or a defining 
word, used to qualify a substantive ; as, good book, 
many boys, I am happy. — Farnum. 

It is not easy to say upon what this definition 
is placed. 

10. An adjective is a word which qualifies a 
noun ; as good, tall. — John Frost. 

This definition rests upon the simple fact that 
the word which is called an adjective, qualifies a 
noun. 

11. An adjective is a word which expresses or 
alludes to some quality, or inherent property of 
the thing represented by the noun ; as, a wise 
man, a straight line. — Pardon Davis. 

It is hard to say on what this definition is 
placed. 

12. An adjective is a word added to a noun to 
describe, qualify, or limit it; as, a good man, a 
virtuous woman, twenty dollars. — John Cosbury. 

Three items constitute the basis of this definition, 
viz. description, qualification, and limitation. 

13. Adjectives are words added to nouns, and 
some other words, to qualify or define their mean- 
ing ; as, good boy, honest men, splendid house 
fine horse, dark clouds. — Bradford Frazee. 

An Adjective is a word used to qualify a Noun ; 
as, good man. — John S. Hart. 

We can not discuss each of these conflicting 
definitions separately. We shall, however, endeavor 
to do them all ample justice. 

1. An adjective is a word added to a substan- 



tive, to express its quality ; as, an industrious 
man, a virtuous woman. — Murray. 

The first thing which deserves attention in this 
definition, is the idea expressed by the word, 
"added." 

To add is to join something to that which was 
before.. — Walker. 

1. To set or put together, join or unite, as one 
thing or sum to another, in an aggregate ; as, add 
three to four, the sum is seven. — Webster. 

2. To unite in idea or consideration, to subjoin. 
To what has been alleged, let, this argument be 

added. — Webster. 

3. To increase the number. 

Thou shalt add three cities more of refuge. — 
Webster. 

4. To augment. 

Rehoboam said, I will add to your yoke. — 
Webster. 

Ye shall not add to the word which I command 
you. 

Add three to four. 

1. How can you add three units to four, unless 
you already have the four to which you can 
add the three ? 

2. To what has been already advanced, let this 
argument be added. 

That which is first advanced, is that to which 
this argument is to be added. 

3. Thou shalt add three cities more of refuge. 
The original cities of refuge are they to which 

three more are to be added. 

To add is to join something to that which was 
before. — Walker. 

In this sense add is used by all. One can not 
even think of adding unless there is something 
already placed to which he may add. No man 
talks about building an additional house, unless 
he has one already. Under this view of the 
subject, let us inquire which are the added words 
in the following sentences : 

1. He is a good boy. 

2. They are fine children. 

In the vocal, and in the written, form, is, a, good, 
boy, would be added words ; for, in speaking, and 
in writing, these words would be introduced after 
the formation of he — hence in addition to he '. Is, 
then, is added to he — a is added to is — good is 
added to a — and boy is added to good ! 

Therefore, in the vocal, or in the written form, 
the words in the following sentences, are divided 
into Added, and Unadded : 

He is a good boy. 

In the second sentence also, the words when 
spoken, or written, must be divided into added, 
and unadded. They is the unadded word, while 
are, fine, and children, are the added ones. But 
as the words of a printed sentence, are all pre- 
sented at the same point of time, a printed sentence 
can have no adjective ! What ! can one of two 



APPEAL. 



45 



houses which have been erected at the same time, 
be denominated an additional house ? It cannot 
be ; the distinction is without sense. 

The word, added, not only indicates a state; 
but it implies the manner in which the state is 
produced. When the state of connection is pro- 
duced in any manner different from that which 
'.he word, add, indicates, the state is expressed, 
not by add, but by some other word ; as, junction, 
conjunction, connection, conjection, &c. 

Hence, when the right hand is put upon the 
left, the right hand is the added one. And this 
state of connection may be denominated adjection. 
But, when both hands start from given points, and 
come in contact, the state of connection thus pro- 
duced, cannot be denominated adjection. 

" Small apple." 

The only proof that small is an adjective, is 
derived from juxtaposition, nearness. And is not 
the word, apple, as near to the word, small, as 
small is to apple I If, then, juxtaposition consti- 
tutes small, an adjective, both words are adjectives. 
As both words are presented, printed, at the same 
time, and one is as near to the other as the other 
is to it, what can render one an added word 
more than the other ? Is it replied that small 
is more an adjective than apple, because small 
expresses a quality ? The answer is, that small 
does not fall within the first part of the definition 
of an adjective ; for small is not an added word — 
hence, unless the mere fact of expressing quality, 
renders a word an adjective, how can small be an 
adjective ? And, if a word is an adjective merely 
from the fact that it expresses quality, then the 
italic nouns in the following instances, are all 
adjectives. 

He is a man of virtue. 

This is a man of great strength. 

The roundness of the ball. 

The smoothness of the paper. 

Does not the noun, virtue, express a quality of 
the man ? Does not strength also denote a quality 
of the man ? Does not roundness denote a quality 
of the ball ? And does not smoothness signify a 
quality of the paper ? What, then, becomes of the 
definition of an adjective, which is founded upon 
the expression of a quality ? 

Watts, who has written much upon the subject 
of qualities, says, — " Motion, shape, quantity, 
weight, &c, &c, are properties or modes of bodies 
and that wit, folly, love, doubting, judging, &c., 
&c, are modes, or qualities of the mind." 

Again says Watts — " The term, mode, extends 
to all attributes whatever, including the most 
essentia], and inward properties, and reaches even 
to actions themselves as well as the manner of 
action." 

A quality is defined by Watts, and others, as 
follows : — 

" A mode, or quality is that property which 
cannot exist in, and of, itself, but is always esteemed 



as belonging to, and as subsisting by, the help of 
some substance which, for this reason is called its 
subject." 

Thus the words, solidity, brightness, similarity, 
roundness, softness, accuracy, action, thinking, 
thought, to think, motion, &c, all denote qualities 
of some subject, upon which they depend for their 
existence. 

But let it be conceded that small, in the phrase 
small apple, comes within the first part of the defi- 
nition of an adjective. That is, grant that small is 
an added word ; and what follows ? why, that all 
words which arc added to nouns to express quali- 
ties, are adjectives. Now, all verbs are as much 
added to nouns as small, or any other adjective. 
All verbs too express quality — therefore all verbs 
are adjectives ! 

Blair says, " The verb is so far of the same 
nature with the adjective, that it expresses, like 
the adjective, an attribute or property of some 
person or thing — thus, when I say the sun shines, 
shining is the attribute ascribed to the sun." — 
Blair's Lectures. 

The 6ame doctrine is taught by Beattie — who 
says — " The verb, and adjective agree in this — 
both express, qualities or attributes." 

Thus it is asserted by these British oracles in 
English philology, that verbs do express qualities, 
and that they are in this respect perfect adjec- 
tives. 

Nor is Murray himself less clear in his expres- 
sion of this doctrine. For, in etymology, he 
tells us that an adjective expresses the quality of a 
noun ; and in syntax he informs us that the 
verb expresses the quality of a noun : 

The principal parts of a simple sentence, axe 
the attribute, and the object; as, a wise man 
governs his passions. Here, a wise man is the 
subject ; governs the attribute ; and his passions, 
the object. — Murray. 

The only difference between the definition of an 
adjective, and that of a verb, arises from general- 
izing in one case, and particularizing in the other. 
In defining an adjective, grammarians make it 
express all qualities ; as, good, bad, high, run, 
walk, &c, &-C 

But in defining a verb, they particularize being, 
action, and passion, and that too in a way which 
interdicts the idea that being, action, and passion 
are qualities. Thus, after including all animals 
in one definition, they define a horse in a way 
which indicates that he is not an animal of any 
kind I 

But to all this it may be said " that little, or no 
importance is attached to the idea expressed by 
add, in this definition of an adjective." 

Indeed, " little or no importance is attached to 
the idea expressed by add .'" 

What ! When we have demonstrated that the 
foundation, of a certain house, is mere sand, do 
the builders, and owners of it turn upon us with 



46 



APPEAL. 



the language that " little or no importance is 
attached to the foundation of the building," by 
them ! ? Is not the principle of adjection the 
foundation of this definition of an adjective ? Not 
only have the old school grammarians built their 
definition of an adjective, upon the idea of addition, 
but they have selected their part of speech name 
for this class of words in direct reference to this 
principle ! Do these distinguished philologists 
know that their word, adjective, is the word, add, 
in another form ! ? 

The words which the old school grammarians 
denominate adjectives, can not be defined upon 
the principle of adjection. Nor can these words 
be classed upon the union of adjection, and quality. 
Verbs express quality ; as, John walks. 

The only basis on which these words can be 
classed is the branch relation which they bear to 
nouns, and pronouns. 

In Book I. they are called clades to denote their 
branch relation. (Klados, a branch.) 

In Book II. they are called adjectives, to dis- 
tinguish them from other clades, which in 
Book II. are called prepositions, conjunctions, 
adverbs, &c. 

These branch words have something which 
distinguishes them from all other clades — viz : the 
capacity to be used both with the cordictive, and 
the uncordictive noun ; as, 

Good men do good deeds. 

Good, an adjective. 

men , a cordictive noun. 

do , a verb. 

good, an adjective. 

deeds, an uncordictive noun. 

An adjective is a word added to a substantive 
to express its quality. — Murray. 

1. " Henry purchased brewer's yeast." 

That the word, brewer's, is here used to show 
the particular kind of yeast, is obvious. If, then, 
a word which expresses the kind, denotes a 
quality, this noun which is in the possessive case, 
is really an adjective ! ! 

2. " Baker's bread is generally raised with 
brewer's yeast." 

Baker's is here used to express the kind of 
bread — hence baker's is an adjective ! I 

But it may be said that although baker's does 
express the kind of bread, it does not express a 
quality. 

Do not carving, pen, public^ Indian, ground, 
and gray, denote kinds in the following instances — 
and are not these words adjectives ? 

1. Carving knife. 

2. Pen knife. 

3. Public house. 

4. Indian corn. 

5. Ground squirrel. 

6. A gray squirrel. 

1. He drank a glass of French brandy. 



Does not French express the kind of brandy ? 
And is not French an adjective ! ? 

What kind of hats do you want ? 

I want boys' hats. 

" Boys," then is an adjective ! ! ! 

We presume that this word will be parsed by 
the next mender as a noun adjective, in the 
possessive case ! I 

Mr. Comly, says, 

An adjective is a word used to express some 
quality or property of a noun, or pronoun, or to 
show the extent of its signification ; as, good, wise, 
this, that, one, two. — Comly. 

1. A wise man. 

2. A man of wisdom. 

Mr. Comly founds his definition upon the fact 
that the word expresses a quality, or property, or 
limits the noun's extent of signification. Hence, 
wise is an adjective. But wise is not more an 
adjective than wisdom 1 Wise, and wisdom, are 
two forms of one word — and, as both forms express 
a quality, both are adjectives ! ! 

The word, property, is synonymous with quality. 
Hence this addition to Mr. Murray's definition, 
must be considered as a mere ornament ! 

1. John has boy's hats for sale. 

2. Have you any of Comly's Grammars ? 

3. Give us some baker's bread. 

4. Have you seen my glove ? 

5. John's hat is new. 

6. This lady's fan. 

1. Will it be denied that boys' limits the noun 
hats to the hats of boys ? 

2. Surely Mr. Comly himself, must see that the 
word Comly's limits the noun, Grammars, to his 
own book ! 

Was Mr. Comly to call for baker's bread, and 
be served with domestic, he might be displeased i 

4. "My," certainly shows that the "glove" 
applies to mine only. 

6. And lady's confines the noun, fan, to the 
one which belongs to herself! 

Boys', Comly's, bakers, my, John's and lady's 
must be adjectives ! ! 

Mr. Hubbard, says, 

" An adjective is a word added to a noun or 
pronoun to express its quality ; as, a good man, a 
pleasant day." 

As our reflections upon the definition given by 
Mr. Murray, apply to this, we shall merely ask the 
reader to transfer our remarks on Murray's, to 
this. 

Mr. Bullions, says, 

"An adjective is a word added to a noun, to 
express its quality ; as, a good boy." 

As this definition of an adjective is nothing but 
Murray's, the arsenic which we have adminis- 
tered to Murray's, will extend its work of destruc- 
tion through this also ! 

Mr. Goold Brown says, 

" An adjective is a word added to a noun, or 



A P P E A L. 



47 



pronoun, and generally expresses quality; as, a 
Wise man, a new book — you two are diligent." 

By this definition, a word which is added to a 
noun or pronoun, is an adjective ! The author 
expressly says, that the expression of quality, is 
not essential to the adjective character of the word. 
Hence a, and the, my, and its, John's and Stephen's, 
are all adjectives : 

1. A man. A. is added to man. 

2. The man. The is added to man. 

3. My book. My is added to booh. 

4. Its length. Its is added to length. 

5. John's book. John's is added to &oo&. 

6. Stephen's book. Stephen's is added to 6oo^r. 
Let us now see if verbs are not adjectives by 

virtue of this definition of an adjective : 

1. John walks. 

2. Joseph trembles. 

3. James can walk 

4. Jane resembles him. 

Every action is a quality — and, as walks 
expresses an action and is added to John, this 
neuter verb is an adjective. 

3. " James can walk." 

Can is added, to James, and expresses a quality 
— hence this auxiliary verb is an adjective ! Will 
it be pretended that, can, does not express a 
quality ? Can, expresses something which belongs 
to James — can, expresses something which can 
not exist, " in, and of, itself." 

Watts says, 

" A quality is that property which can not 
exist in, and of itself, but is always esteemed as 
belonging to, and as subsisting by the help of some 
substance which, for this reason is called its 
subject." 

Does not the ability, the power, the faculty, to 
walk, which is expressed by can, belong to 
James ? Can this power, which is expressed by 
can, exist alone ? 0, no. Can, then, does denote 
a quality — hence, can, is an adjective l 

Let us hear. Blair : 

The verb is so far of the same nature with the 
adjective that it expresses, like the adjective, an 
attribute or property of some person or thing — 
thus, when I say the sun shines, shines 13 the 
attribute ascribed to the sun. — Blair's Lectures. 

The same doctrine is taught by Beattie — who 
says : 

" The verb, and adjective agree in this, both 
express qualities, or attributes." 

Thus it is asserted by these British oracles in 
English philology, that verbs do express qualities, 
and that they are in this respect perfect adjec- 
tives. 

Nor is Murray himself, less clear in his expres- 
sion of this doctrine. For, in Etymology, he tells 
us that an adjective expresses the quality of a noun ; 
and in Syntax, he informs us that the verb 
expresses the quality of a noun : 

The principal parts of a simple sentence, are the 



attribute, the subject, and the object; as, a wise 
man governs his passions. Here, a wise man is 
the subject; governs the attribute ; and his pas- 
sions, the object — Murray. 

It is admitted, then, by the old school gram- 
marians themselves, that the verb expresses quali- 
ties. But they seem to take it for granted that, 
while the verb is an adjective in this respect, it is 
not an adjective in respect to adjection ! Hence 
the}'- appear to think that there is a wide difference 
between a verb and an adjective. Verbs, however, 
are as much added to nouns as are adjectives '. 

1. "A wise man governs his passions." 

Man governs passions. What ! can it be said 
that governs is not added to man, and passions ! ? 
Ts there no adjective relation between man, and 
governs ? Then there is no adjective relation 
between wise, and man ! 

Can the old school grammarians show that 
verbs are not added words ! ? The fact that they 
cannot show this proves that they are added 
words. Verbs, then, are adjectives. 

Let us now attempt to demonstrate that prepo- 
sitions are adjectives ! 

An adjective is a word added to a noun, or pro- 
noun, and generally expresses quality. — Goold 
Brown. 

Under the table. 
Over the new table. 

Does not under express a quality ? Dees not 
under express something which belongs to the 
table ? Under, denotes a place — and does not this 
place belong to the table ? This place is the 
table's under. 

Over the table, 

There is a place which belongs to the table 
that is denominated, over. Either this place can 
exist in its over character, without the table, or 
this place is a quality of the table. Under, and 
over, then expresses two local places, qualities, of 
the table — hence these prepositions in this respect, 
are perfect adjectives. 

Let us now ask whether these prepositions are 
not added to the noun, table ? These prepositions 
are said to belong to table — but how can they 
belong to table, if they have no frame-work con- 
nection with table ? 

Under new tables. 

Under, a preposition, belonging to tables. 

New, an adjective, belonging to tables. 

Why is " belonging to," applied to under, and 
new, if both words do not bear the same rela- 
tion to tables ! ? 

Having demonstrated that the prepositions are 
adjectives, we should be glad to show that adverbs 
and conjunctions, are adjectives. But we have 
no space for further comment. 

CLASSIFICATION OF ADJECTIVES. 

Goold Brown, classes adjectives as follows ; — 



48 



APPEAL. 



"Adjectives may be divided into six classes ; 
namely, " common, proper, numeral, pronominal, 
participial, and compound!' 1 '' 

This array of technical armament is hideous 
indeed ; it strikes the student with appalment ! 
But slavish and dreadful as the scene may appear 
from the above presentation, the half of this 
compiler's huge moulds of technical verbiage, un- 
founded divisions, and almost innumerable useless 
subdivisions, could not be presented, and properly 
exposed, in a volume of fewer than five hundred 
pages ! Even the page of terror, from which we 
have taken his six classes of one part of speech, 
attempts a subdivision : — 

" Numeral adjectives are of two kinds ; namely," 

1. Cardinal; as, one, two, three, 

2. Ordinal; as, first, second, third. 

The compiler makes fen parts of speech ; each 
of which he has so multiplied by subdivision, that 
his book contains nearly one hundred parts of 
speech ! ! 

The work from which we have made our 
extracts, is an abridgement of the author's full 
work, or as he calls it, " finished labors /" This 
small work is entitled, "The First Lines of 
English Grammar ."' 

That is, the first lines of his finished labors '. 
Now, if all his lines are as crooked as his first, it 
is to be wished for his own good, that his 
first lines should be his last lines ! The compiler, 
it seems has been able to say, "my labor is 
finished ."' But will the child that studies his 
grammar, ever be able to adopt the author's 
expressive language ? 

We would remark, in conclusion, that if adjec- 
tives are to be divided into classes upon the prin- 
ciple pursued by our compiler, Mr. G. B., we may 
have as many classes as adjectives have meanings. 
He, and the British grammarians whom he apes, 
inform us that six should be called a numeral 
adjective because it denotes number! 

If this principle should be carried out, we should 
have, 

1. Wooden adjectives ; as, a wooden dish. 

2. Iron adjectives ; as, an iron bar. 

3. Cloth adjectives ; as, cloth shoes. 

These, to run the parallel, must be subdivided 
into smaller classes ; as, 

1. Maple wooden adjectives.' 

2. Oak wooden adjectives ! 

3. Fine wooden adjectives, — a pine table. 

4. Hemlock wooden adjectives ! 
These again must be subdivided into — 

1. Rock maple wooden adjectives ! 

2. Curled maple wooden adjectives, and so on 
till earth's entire forest is methodically fixed out 
in fanciful rows, according to the first lines of 
Goold Brown's grammar ! 

So, too, we may put all the cloths into '■''first 
rate order," by following " The first lines of 
Goold Brown's grammar ! .'" Thus — 



1. Black cloth adjectives 

2. Black broad cloth adjectives ! ! 

3. Snvff-colored broad cloth adjectives ! ! ! 

Let us now urge our author to resume his 
finished labors, carry out his plan, — put nature, 
art, and science into fascinating system, by his 
lines of grammar I 

DEGREES OF COMPARISON. 

" Good" is an adjective of the positive degree 
of comparison ? But good is not a word which 
suggests comparison in any degree whatever : 
good carries the idea of contrast instead of com- 
parison ! Joseph is a good boy ; but Stephen is a 
bad one. 

'■'■Better'''' is said to be of the comparative degree 
of comparison ! Why, is not every degree of com- 
parison a comparative degree ? When it is said, 
Mr. Jones is the best man of the six, is there no 
comparison? Why, then, is not best of the com~ 
parative degree of comparison? ! 

But we deny the soundness of the doctrine of 
the superlative degree taught by the old school 
grammarians. 

I think that Mr. Joseph R. Chandler has 
advanced the idea that the tri-derivative ratiodic- 
tion (superlative degree) may be applied where 
there are but two objects mentioned ; as, 

That tree is the highest of the two ; Jane is the 
oldest of the two girls. 

I must dissent from the doctrine of this position 
altogether. I have given considerable attention to 
the subject of the tri-derivative ratiodiction, and 
have come to the conclusion that it cannot be sus- 
tained in any case. 

True, the world has started with this form of 
expression — but it is founded in philological error, 
and in an unphilosophical principle. He who 
examines the tri-derivative form of expression, 
will arrive at the conclusion that it is very 
analogous to the following which is ridiculously 
wrong : — 

1. The Bible is better than any book. 

2. Methuselah was older than any man. 

1. As the Bible is a book, and as the Bible is 
better than any book, it follows that the Bible is 
better than itself! 

2. As Methusaleh was a man, and as he was 
older than any man, it follows that Methuselah 
was actually older than himself! 

Let it be presumed that there are three books 
before us ; and that the Bible is one of the three. 
Let the following proposition be made in relation 
to the Bible :— 

1. The Bible is the best book of the three. 

This proposition is exactly synonymous with 
the following : — 

2. The Bible is better than any one of the three 
books. 

Now, as the Bible is one of the three, is it not 



APPEAL. 



49 



clearly said here that the Bible is better than 
itself? 

The Bible is the best book of the three. 

That is, of all the books which belong to this 
triplicate group of books, the Bible is the best. 
Now, if the Bible actually belongs to this group 
of books, is it not clearly represented to be better 
than itself? 

But what is the exact idea to be expressed ? It 
is that the Bible is better than either of the other 
two books. 

The idea, however, which is expressed, is that 
the Bible is better than any one of the three books. 
And, as the Bible is one of the three, it follows 
that the superlative degree, as they call it, clearly 
expresses that the Bible is actually better than 
itself! 

She is the handsomest lady in the room. 

Now, if the lady is in the room, she is hand- 
somer than herself! 

Should the plausibility of my position have a 
tendency to invalidate Mr. Chandler's, that the 
superlative degree may be used where there are 
but two things, let him console himself with the 
reflection that he is the greatest grammarian in 
the world. That is, he is greater than himself! 

That I may be clearly understood on the sub- 
ject of the use of the superlative degree of com- 
parison, it may be well to say — 

1. The superlative degree, in any instance, is 
against sound philosophy. 

2. The superlative degree cannot be used where 
all the objects do not fall under the same denomi- 
nation. 

3. The superlative degree can be used where 
there are but two things, if both fall under the 
same denomination, with as much philosophic pro- 
priety as it can where there are three, or more. 

4. Some mono, expressed or understood, which 
begins with of must invariably follow the superla- 
tive degree ; as, She is the handsomest lady in the 
room. 

That is, she is the handsomest lady of all the 
ladies in the room. 

hart's grammar. 

Some may think that the Grammar compiled 
by John S. Hart, merits more attention from us 
than it has hitherto received. That we have paid 
very little attention to this book, is true. Our 
want of attention to it, however, proceeds, not 
from a conviction that the work is invulnerable ; 
but from a dread to assail the productions of a 
colossal who stands with one foot in the Philadel- 
phia High School, and the other in the American 
Philosophical Society. 

Mr Hart says, (p. 48,) that 

" An adjective is a word used to qualify a noun ; 
as, good man." 

It is not easy to see that good qualifies man. 



Under this same page (48) the compiler says, that, 
" adjectives denote some substance quality or pro- 
perty just as truly as nouns do." In illustration 
of this fact he remarks that brazen, in the expres- 
sion, brazen tube, denotes the same substance that 
the noun brass, docs. 

Now, if brazen denotes the substance of brass, 
this adjective is not used to qualify the noun, 
tube. 

This adjective is used to express the material 
out of which the tube is formed. If the word, 
brazen, should give the noun, tube, a particular 
form, or any way change its dictionary meaning, 
it might be said to qualify this noun. But the 
noun, tube, has the same meaning and the same 
form with brazen which it has without brazen. 

The noun, tube, means a pipe, a hollow cylinder, 
&c. But a tube may be made of wood, metal, or 
glass ; as, a metal tube, wooden tube, glass tube. 

Now, it is obvious, that brass, wooden, and 
glass ara used, not to change the meaning of the 
noun, tube, but to denote the different materials 
of which the three tubes are formed. Glass is the 
name of the material, and tube that of the thing 
formed out of the material. But, if the word, glass, 
should actually change the meaning of the word, 
tube, by causing this noun to mean a fish, a bird, 
a hat, or any object at all, but a tube, glass might 
be said to qualify tube. 

" Good man." 

Here the adjective, good, is used, not to qualify 
the meaning of the noun, man, but to denote the 
moral character of the real man. Did the word, 
good, cause the word, man, to mean a girl, a 
lady, an angel, or a bird, we could say that good 
qualifies man. 

Mr. Hart's Grammar is a patchwork, and resem- 
bles tufa formed by the concretion of loose volcanic 
dust, or cinders, which, from the very slight 
cohesion, to each other, seem to be cemented by 
mere water. 

We do not wish to despoil Mr. Hart of the 
honor of re-forming Mr. Murray's Grammar. The 
book is already in being, and in use. But, although 
we have nothing to urge against the mode in 
which it crept into being, we could say much 
against the manner in which it has been forced 
into use ! 

Boys who present themselves as candidates for 
admission into the Philadelphia High school, are 
required to pass an examination in Hartfs Gram- 
mar — Hence the teachers of the boys' Grammar 
schools, are forced to use Hart's Grammar, or 
suffer the painful mortification of having the young 
gentlemen whom they send up as candidates for 
admission into the High School, rejected by the 
principal of said school, for not understanding 
Murray as the said principal has presented 
him ! ! ! 



50 



APPEAL. 



THE ADJECTIVE DENOMINATION 

Is a large class of uncordictive branch words, 
applicable both to cordictive, and uncordictive 
nouns, and employed merely to suggest, or fully 
to express, something which the nouns do not 
include; as, What man came? Any man, No 
man, John's man, Brewers' yeast, Murray's 
Grammar, Boy's hats. 

The general meaning of adjectives may be 
acquired to some extent, from the following 

ILLUSTRATIONS. 

Adjectives are employed, 



1. [To allude to par- 

ticularity.] 

2. [To express vague. 

ness.1 



3. [To express to- 

tality,] 

4. [7b express nega. 

Hon.] 

5. [To express particu- 

larity.] 



6. [To express seve- 

ralty.] 

7. [To express num- 

ber.] 

8. [To express iden- 

tity.] 



9. [7b express state. 



10. [To express quali- 
ty.] 



11. [7b express the 
use.] 



1. What man will come ? 

2. WJiich man shall I call ? 

3. Which one went ? 

1. Any man may come. 

2. Some one will come. 

1. All men will not come. 

2. The whole company 

came. 

3. They all will come. 

1. No man will come. 

2. No one will come, 

3. Neither man will come. 

1. Certain men will come. 
2 Particular ones have 
come. 

1. Each man will come. 

2. Every one will come. 

3. Either man may go. 

4. Neither man will come. 

1. One man will come. 

2. (Sij; men will come. 

1. Same men 

2. Fen/ ones. 

3. Identical man. 

4. Aforesaid man. 

1 WeZZ men can come. 

2. SicA: men cannot come. 

3. Broken dishes. 

4. Whole dishes. 

5. They are anxious. 

6. Thou art rich. 

7. Ye are angry. 

1. Large men will come. 

2. Strong men will come. 

3. Tall ones will come. 

4. SftorZ ones will come. 

1. Carving knife. 

2. Writing desk. 

3. Moe leather. 

4. Tea pot. 

5. TbofA pick. 

6. Razor strop. 

7. .Ba&e pan. 

8. Cheese press. 

9. Wash bowl. 



12. [ 7b indicate that the 

things mentioned, 

are not well known, 1. A man will come. 

or that they are not 2. An Indian will come. 

distinguished from 3. A man of that com. 

others by dis- pany. 

tinctive circum- 
stances.] 
Here a indicates that the man who will come, 
is not distinguished from the other men of the 
company by any distinctive circumstances. 

13. [7b indicate either 

that the things 1. The man who stands 

mentioned, are there. 

well known, or that 2. The sun has risen. 

they are distin- 3. The lion is a noble ani- 

guished from all mal. 

other things of 4. Thou art the man. 

the same kind by 5. The Legislature of 

distinctive circum- Pennsylvania, is in 

stances, express, session. 

or implied.] 

COMMENTS. 

1. 7%e man who stands yonder, will come. 
The clause, who stands yonder, expresses the 
distinctive circumstance which is indicated by the, 
in The man, &c. 

2. 7%e sun has risen. 
Here, the indicates that the sun is well known. 
The sun. What sun? The well known sun 
which is the great source of heat, and light. 

3. The lion is noble. 
Here, too, the indicates that the lion is well 
known. 

4. Thou art the man. 

What man ? The man that had been described 
by Nathan before this application of the to the 
word, man. 

" And David's anger was greatly kindled against 
the man — and he said to Nathan, as the Lord 
liveth, The man that hath done this thing, shall 
surely die." 

* U* " that hath done this 



5. The Legislature of Pennsylvania is now in 
session. 
The description to which the points, is of Penn- 
sylvania. 

In the Grammar these instances of illustration 
are extended to one hundred ; and they might be 
to ten thousands J What, then, becomes of the 
common definition, An Adjective is a word added 
to a noun to express its quality; as what man 
came, any book will answer, some man came in ! 

Adjectives which express qualities, are few in- 
deed ! 

♦The finger is the word, the, which directs the attention 
of David to the description— "that hath done this thing;" 



APPEAL. 



51 



CHAPTER X. 



VERB. 



A verb is a word which signifies to be, to do, or 
to suffer; as, I am, I rule, I am ruled. — Murray. 

Mr. Murray has illustrated his definition b} r 
" a?n, rule, and am ruled." But we shall illustrate 
it by nouns .' 

"A verb is a word which signifies being, action, 
or, suffering ; as, 

1. The existence of these papers is not disputed. 
{Existence denotes being.) 

2. The great race was run last week. (Race 
signifies action.) 

3. John is in pain. (Pain signifies suffering.) 
It may, be said, however, that " to be, to a*o, 

and to suffer," denote something different from 
being, action, and suffering. But by perusing the 
seventy-first page of Mr. Murray's own Grammar, 
it will appear, beyond any doubt, that this author 
means being, action, and suffering, by " to be, to 
do, or to suffer." 

Under this page, Mr. Murray is laboring to 
prove that a participle is a verb. In this attempt 
he employs the following language : 

" But they (participles) also signify action." 

That is, participles are verbs, because they, like 
verbs, signify action. 

Again says Mr. Murray — 

" That they (participles) are modes of verbs, 
is manifest for they signify being, action or 
suffering." 

Goold Brown's definition : 

"A verb is a word which signifies to be, to act, 
or to be acted upon, as I am, I rule, I am ruled" 

We shall now illustrate Mr. Brown's definition 
of a verb by the use of nouns : 

"A verb is a word which signifies to be, to act 
or to be acted upon ; as, 

1. Man derives his being from God. (Being.) 

2. These horses are to run the next race, 
(Race.) 

3. It was a hard blow. (Blow.) 

That the word, being, does not fully signify to 
be, is obvious. But it comes as near this import 
as any other word in the language. There is no 
word in existence, which signifies to be. " To be" 
signifies to be. But is to a verb ! ? Does am sig- 
nify to be. 

I am. 

Does is signify to be ! ? No verily. 

Does was, signify to be ! ? 

Henry was ! John had been. 

Does had been signify to be ! ! ? 

Mr. Greenleaf' has given a just commentary on 
the words, to be, to do, or to suffer. 

A verb is a word which expresses action or 
being. — Greenleaf 



The form of expression, adopted by Goold 
Brown, does not change the true ideas of Murray, 
which are, being, action, and suffering. 

" To act." Is there a word in our language 
which signifies to act ? That act with to, signifies 
to act, is obvious. But what one word can be 
found which signifies to act 1 ? Does wrote, does 
ruled, does Jlownl 

1. " James then, wrote a letter." 

2. " John ruled his paper." 

3. " The bird has flown." 
Does flown signify to act ! ? 

The noun, blow, comes as near the expression 
of the idea signified by the words, " to be* act ed 
upon," as any other word of which we can now 
think. 

A severe blow was struck. 

Blow, as a noun, is defined as follows : 

" Blow — a stroke." 

There can be no stroke unless something is 
struck — hence blow, and " to be acted upon," are 
much the same in idea. 

Strictly speaking, Mr. Brown has so diminished 
the range, the reach, of Murray's definition of a 
verb that no verb can be found in the English 
language except the noun, blow, and " to be," and 
" to act I '. ."' 

Bradford Frazee's definition of a verb : 

"A verb is a word that asserts being or action, 
or a state of being ; as, J write, He reads, John 
sits. 

1. Is John in the house ? 

Does is assert, affirm that John is in the 
house ! ? 

2. " Go thou to school." 

Does the verb, go, which is in the imperative 
mode, even according to Mr. Frazee's own Gram- 
mar, assert, affirm action ! ? 

3. " If he comes soon." 

Does comes, which is in the contingent mode, 
declare, affirm, assert, action ! ! I ? Preposterous. 

Away, away with trash like this. If this is the 
inductive system of Bradford Frazee, we pray 
that the ghost of Murray may visit it before the 
youth of our country have any thing to do with 
it. " An Improved Grammar of the English 
Language .' .' .' " A verb is a word which 
asserts 1 ! ! .' 

John Frost's definition of a verb : 

" A verb is a word which affirms, or asserts , 
as, strike, walk, be." 

We regret that the learned author has left this 
definition without a picture nothing but a cut can 
illustrate it ' ! These verbs in the imperative 
mode, produce no effect whatever ! It seems to 
us that the picture of a puff-ball would convey to, 
and impress upon, the pupil's mind, the true char- 
acter of Doctor Frost's definition ! 

Pardon Davis's definition of a verb : 

" Any word representing action, or beings is a 
verb ; as write, be, think." 



52 



APPEAL. 



Does not subtraction represent action ? What, 
then, prevents this common noun from becoming" 
a verb ! ? 

" The subtraction of seven from fourteen, 
leaves seven." 

Why is not " being,'' 1 in the following instance, 
a verb ? 

" Both letters are now in being," 

Does not " being" represent being '. ? 

Caleb Farnum's definition of a verb : 

"A verb is a word which signifies to be, to do, 
or to suffer ; as," 

1. Both letters are now in existence. (Exist- 
ence.)- 

2. We are now in the investigation of Mr. Far- 
Hum's definition of a verb. {Investigation.) 

3. The tooth-ache produces great suffering. 
( Toothache an d suffering.) 

Will Mr. Farnum inform us by what authority 
he calls resembles a verb ! ? 

Mr. Farnum resembles Mr. Murray. 

Will Mr. Farnum inform us by what authority 
he makes has a verb. 

Mr. Farnum has Mr. Murray's definition of a 
verb. 

Does resemble signify being, action, or suffer- 
ing ! ? 

Does not has signify possession ! ? 

Dr. Btdlions's definition of a verb , 

U A verb is a word which expresses an action, 
or state ; as I write, He sleeps, They are." 

If a verb is a Word which expresses an action, 
why are not all the nouns which signify actions, 
verbs ! t 

1. " Henry is now engaged in this very action." 
Does not the word, action, express action ! ? 

Why, then, is not " action" a verb ! ! ? 

2. " John is now in a deep sleep." 

Does not the noun, sleep, express a state ! ? 

Doctor Bullions is one of the Murray menders. 
In his preface he says, — 

" With all its excellence, however, it (Murray's 
Grammar) is far from being incapable of improve- 
ment ; and the attempt to add to its value as a 
manual for schools, by correcting what is erro. 
neous, retrenching what is superfluous or unim- 
portant, compressing what is prolix, elucidating 
w T hat is obscure, determining what was left 
doubtful, supplying what is defective, and bringing 
up the whole to that state of improvement to which 
the labors of eminent scientific and practical 
writers of the present day, have so greatly contri- 
buted, can hardly fail, if well executed, to prove 
acceptable to the public ! ! !" 

" To that state of improvement." 

Has not Mr. Bullions included the noun, state 
in his definition of a verb ! ? Or does not the 
word, state, express a state ! ! ? 

These men who speak so learnedly, yet so im- 
properly, on the subject of mending Murray's 
wardrobe, will have enough to do to keep their 



own from the ravages of the paper mill ! That 
Mr. Bullions, or any other of the grammar mend- 
ers, should presume to prate about bringing 
Murray's works " up to the state of improvement 
to which the labors of eminent practical, scientific 
writers of the present day, have so greatly contri- 
buted," is bombast. Let these men learn to equal- 
yes, to equal, Murray, before they boast of their 
abilities to surpass him ! 



Have, 
May, 
Can, 

Must, 
Might, 



Could, 

Would, 

Should, 

Shall, 

Will, 



Should it be urged that these words are aux- 
iliary verbs, we must observe that their auxiliary 
character does not bring them within the scope of 
the definition of a verb. Besides, to urge that 
these words are verbs because they are denomi- 
nated auxiliary verbs, is to contend that a certain 
man's sur name is Johnson, because his Christian 
name is Samuel ! Does the fact that his Christian 
name is Samuel, establish the fact that his sur- 
name is Johnson I ? 

Does the fact that these words are called aux- 
iliary, establish the fact that they are really 
verbs ! ? If these words are verbs, they are verbs, 
not because they are called auxiliary, but because 
they are described in the definition of a verb. 

In the definition of the verb we find the word, 
signify, employed : 

* A verb is a word which signifies to be, to do, 
or to suffer." 

Do any of these auxiliaries signify to be, to do, 
or to suffer ? No one of them signifies any thing 
of the kind. In proof of this, it may, be proper to 
subjoin the following illustration of these words : 



" Have," denotes possession ; as, children, have 
ye any meat ? 

MAY. 

" May" expresses liberty ; as, he may return if 
he desires it. 

" May" also expresses doubt ; as, he may not 
be here ; although I expect him. 



" Can," expresses power, or ability ; as, he can 
pass the guard. 



"Must," denotes necessity, or compulsion; as 
he must pay the debt. 



" Might," expresses liberty ; as, he might have 
passed the guard, had he been so disposed. 

" Might" signifies power also ; as, he might 
have returned in spite of his keepers. 



APPEAL. 



53 



"Might," signifies mere possibility; as, Henry 
might have been present ; but it is not probable. 

could, and would. 

" Could," signifies power, or ability ; as, he 
could stand alone, He could pay his debts. 

Would, signifies determination ; as, he would 
go in. 

Would, signifies inclination ; as, I would that 
all would come to a knowledge of the truth. 



Should, signifies duty ; as, Henry should learn 
his lesson. 

SJtould, signifies determination ; as, if he was 
nrr child, he should obey my orders. 

Should, signifies concession; as, should he 
return to Philadelphia, lie will call on us. That is, 
conceding that he returns, &c. 

shall, and WILL. 

1. Shall, expresses a promise ; as, you shall be 
rewarded. 

2. Shall, expresses a foretelling ; as, I shall go 
to-morrow. 

3. Shall, expresses a command ; as, thou shalt 
not steal. 

4. Shall signifies a threatening ; as, the soul 
that sinneth, shall die. 

Will, signifies promising ; as, I will let thee go. 

2. Will, signifies foretelling ; as, he will return 
soon, you will be sick next year. 

How can have, has, hath, had, hadst, hast, may, 
can, might, could, would, should, shall, and will, be 
verbs ! ? Do these words signify being, action, 
or suffering ? ! 

"A verb is a word which signifies being, action, 
cr suffering." 

Let us not be told that this is not the form in 
which Murray gives the definition. 

It is given by Mr. Murray himself, in this 
form ; and it is given by Mr. Greenleaf, in the 
following : 

"A verb is a word which expresses action, or 
being." 

Did verbs signify nothing but being, action, and 
suffering, it might be well to incorporate their 
meaning with the definition of their grammatical 
characteristic. But, as they express forty, or 
fifty totally distinct things, it seems to me, 
unwise to encumber their grammatical descrip- 
tion with a formal enumeration of their Dictionary 
imports. 

Verbs signify being, action, state, possession, 
promise, command, threat, foretelling, duty, power, 
liberty, likeness, possibility, determination, cessa- 
tion, obligation, appearance, continuation, neces- 
sity, desire, suffering, confidence, just ideas of, 
source, capacity, risk, perception, faith in, improve- 
ment in appearance, equality, amount, caution, 
regard, fyc. 



That verbs express these things, is clearly 
demonstrated below. 

This is not all ; for the meanings of verbs as 
here enumerated fall directly under the idea of 
grammar. The context meaning of words, is a 
part of grajnmar. The meaning of a word which 
is taken alone, is taught by a Dictionary, not by a 
Grammar. All the shades of meaning, which 
words acquire from their framework relation with 
each other, and all the shades of meaning, which 
they acquire from the nature of the subject to 
which they are applied in the form of a syllabane, 
or a sentence, make a part of grammar. These 
shades of verbal import, may be styled the context 
meaning of words. But these meanings are too 
numerous to become the basis of the grammatical 
definitions of the ten classes of words. The verb, 
make, alone, has fifty context meanings. 

Do the verbs in the following sentences signify 
to be, to do, or to suffer ? 

THE MEANING OF VERBS. 

1. Being : I am. 

2. Action : I write. 

3. State : I sit. 

4. Possession : I have a book. 

5. Promise : I will return. 

6. Command : Thou shalt not steal. 

7. Threat : If ye eat, ye shall die. 

8. Foretelling : If ye eat, ye will die. 

9. Duty : He ought to be there. 

10. Power : He can be there. 

11. Liberty : He may go there if he wishes. 

12. Likeness : He resembles her. 

13. Possibility : He may be there, and he may 
not. 

14. Determination : He shall go. 

15. Cessation : He fasted a day. 

16. Obligation: He must pay the note. 

17. Appearance : He seems well. 

18. Continuation : He remained here three days. 

19. Desire : He wishes, he wants, to return. 

20. Necessity : He needs bread, and meat. 

21. Suffering : He is burning up in this fire. 

21. Suffering: He is wasting away under this 
disease. 

22. Confidence in : " We trust we have a good 
conscience." 

23. Just ideas of : He understands the problem. 

24. Source ; This river heads in the Blue 
Mountains. 

25. Capacity to contain: .The pail holds ten 
quarts. 

26. Sound, true, just : The rule holds in lands 
as well as in other things. — Locke. 

27. Continuation : While our obedience holds. — 
Milton. 

27. Continuation : " The provisions lasted six 



28 Risk : These men never risk any thing. 



54 



APPEAL. 



29. Clear, certain perception : " If any man will 
do his will, he shall know of the doctrine. 

30. Faith in : " The prince confides in his 
ministers." 

30. Faith in : " These men believe in the 
Lord." 

31. Improvement in appearance : The hat be- 
comes him. 

32. Possession : He enjoys good health, (has.) 

33. Necessity, duty : " It behooved Christ to 
suffer." 

34. Equality : One dollar equals one hundred 
cents. 

35. Amount : The two sums amount to thirty 
cents. 

36. Equivalence: The mesX weighs ten pounds. 

36. Equivalence : The hoard measures ten feet. 
[That is, the board in measure, is ten feet.] 

37. Caution : "Beware of false prophets." 

38. Special care : Beware thou, of the angel 
whom I send unto thee : obey thou him. [Ex.xxiii.] 

39. Brightness : " His gold shines like the sun 
himself." 

40. Extension : The Bridge extends across the 
stream. 

[Does the bridge act ? If not, extends does not 
signify an action.[ 

41. Destitution : "Timber may want strength, 
and solidity to answer the purpose." 

42. Occasion for : " Their manners want cor- 
rection." 

We have demonstrated that verbs mean some- 
thing more than being, action, and suffering. 

In many instances, however, verbs have no 
meaning — on many occasions they surrender their 
signification entirely. To show this, it will be 
necessary to enter into a formal illustration. 

That trusts, understands, heads, holds, risk, 
know, believes, becomes, enjoys, behooves, equals, 
amounts, weights, measures, fyc, may be so used 
that they will express actions, may be very pos- 
sible. But do these verbs express actions here ? 
They do not, 

It may be said with an air of triumph, that 
several of the verbs employed in this illustration, 
are auxiliary verbs ! If they are auxiliary verbs, 
they are surely verbs. And, if they are verbs, 
they are so because they fall under the following 
definition. 

A verb is a word which signifies, 

1. Being, 2. Action, or, 3. Suffering 

But do they fall under this definition ? ! 

What ! Does the fact of calling a word an 
auxiliary verb, bring the word under the preceding 
definition of a verb? ! ! 

" The papers are extinct." 
Does are denote the existence of the papers? 

Nothing like it. 

The adjective, extinct, shows that there are no 

papers to exist ! ! Do the papers exist in an 

extinct state ! ? 



If the account which is given of the class of 
verbs in this work, is just, how defective, and 
erroneous is that given of this class of words in 
the old theory of English grammar ! Can it be 
possible that the character of the verb, with all its 
simplicity, prominence, and importance, is not yet 
understood? 

The following proposition will answer this 
question : 

" A verb is a word which signifies being, action, 
or suffering! .'" 

The expression of being, action, and suffering, 
is not peculiar to verbs. Hence, an attempt to 
define verbs upon this fact must fail. That verbs 
are the signs, the names, of ideas, is rendered very 
clear from the consideration that men employ them 
in the expression of thought. But that what they 
express, through the agency of their Dictionary 
meaning, is the characteristic mark by which they 
alone are classed together, is without foundation. 

Having given a few of the many verbs which 
the definition does not describe, and which, con- 
sequently, it cannot include. We will now pass 
on to a consideration of a few of the many nouns 
which the definition of the verb, truly describes, 
and fairly includes, 

The words in the following list, according to 
the common definition of a verb, are in truth verbs, 
though they are styled nouns. 

Race, action. 

Pain, sensation of uneasisess. — Walker. 

Investigation, the act of searching, examining. 

Decursion, the act of running down. — Walker, 

Dedication, the act of Dedicating. — Walker. 

Decumbence, the act of lying down. — Walker. 

Declination, the act of bending. — Walker. 

Debasement, the act of debasing or degra- 
ding. — Walker. 

Being, existence. — Walker. 

Tooth-ache, pain in the teeth. 

Head-ache, pain in the head. — Walker. 

To assert that, " a verb is a word which signifies 
to be," and then to exclude being from the class 
of verbs is absurd. 

Equally inconsistent is it to affirm that a verb 
is a word which signifies action, and then exclude 
race, investigation, decursion, dedication, decum- 
bence, declination, debasement, and thousands of 
the same kind from the family of verbs ! And to 
include suffering in the definition of a verb, and 
after all, exclude pain, head-ache, tooth-ache, Sfc, 
shows a defect in the definition, which bewilders 
the learner as much as the tooth-ache does its 
unhappy victim. 

The truth is, that to be, to do, or to suffer, is 
neither a definition, nor a description, of a verb. 
To make this feeble attempt extend to the various 
characters which verbs sustain, would advance the 
little group, " to be, to do, or to suffer," to a cata- 
logue of items, the length of which would perplex, 
and discourage the pupil at the very threshhold. 



APPEAL. 



55 



Let us now hear Mr. Greenleaf upon the 
verb : 

"A verb is a word which expresses action or 
being" — As, both letters are now in being ! 

The word, being, certainly expresses being — 
hence this common noun is a verb ! This com- 
piler is one who stands high — for mending Mr. 
Murray ! But this noun is a verb by Mr. Murray's 
definition, and it continues a verb even by the defi- 
nition given by his simplifiers i 

Again — " The race of the last horses." Now, 
from the received definition of a verb, the noun, 
u race" is in truth a verb. Yet, from the received 
definition of a noun, this verb is a noun ! ! What ! 
will a friend to science pretend that, when, a verb 
is a word which expresses action, that " race" is 
not a verb ? Does not this word express as much 
action as the word "run?" The word, run, is 
called a verb. But why ? Because it expresses 
action. And will any grammarian show us that 
race, and run, in the following instance, do not 
express the same thing ? 

" This horse runs a swift race." 
If runs is a verb because it expresses action, 
what must race be called ? Race not only expresses 
action, but the very same action, denoted by the 
verb, " runs .'" 

Let us hear Mr. Comly upon the verb. 
"A verb is a part of speech which signifies to 
be, to act, or receive an action. 

It is very questionable whether there is a word 
in the English language, which denotes the ideas, 
or even one of the ideas embraced in Mr. Comly's 
definition. For instance — where is the word which 
signifies to act. 

" Henry wrote a letter." 

We ask whether there is a word in the expres- 
sion which signifies to act ? Can we say that 
'• wrote" signifies to act ? This word signifies the 
action itself, and that too, as already done ! If we 
say " Xancy dances" — "dances," is a verb — but 
surely " dances" denotes the act itself! 
"The boy runs." 

"Runs" does not mean the "complex idea" 
" to act," — this word denotes action itself. 
But this definition is still more vulnerable — 
"A verb is a word which signifies, to act, to be, 
or to receive an action." 

What word has the English language, which 
signifies " to receive an action" That our lan- 
guage has some few words which signify receiving, 
or the act of receiving, is true — But we think that 
we hazard nothing in saying that the English 
language has no one word which signifies the 
complex idea in this definition of a verb, by Mr. 
Comly. A word, to be a verb under this definition, 
must not only signify the act of receiving ; but it 
must also signify that the thing received, is another 
act ! Hence a verb is a word which must signify 
two actions at the same time — yes, more, for both I 
actions must be received. I 



A verb is a word which signifies " to receive an 
action." 

If a word, then signifies the act of receiving a 
dollar, it is no verb at all — because a verb is a 
word which signifies the act of receiving actions ! 
In the expression — " John received a crown," 
there is no verb ! Yet in the instance — " John 
received a blow," received becomes a verb — since 
the thing received is an action .' 

Mr. Comly has undertaken to simplify Mr. 
Murray's Grammar. But this Grammar has nei- 
ther required nor received any simplification from 
the pen of any author. Mr. Murray has presented 
his own errors as clearly as language could pre- 
sent them. In the grammar of Mr. Murray, 
nothing lies concealed — nothing is hid by a 
confused manner of expression. Mr. Murray 
collected the erroneous suggestions of hundreds 
of men, formed these hints into battle array, 
tented the field of grammatical science, and waged 
war against common sense, and his own language. 
And to render this fact more clear than the pen 
of Murray has presented it, we have had annua] 
simplifiers, and grammar liars ! '. But the whole 
race hi conjunction, has not half the powers which 
that good man has manifested in his works. He 
took the first suggestions upon this abstruse 
science — and he has expressed them in a style so 
limpid, and with a diction so smooth, and gentle, 
that the mind is charmed into a kind of literary 
trance ; and thus swims along without feeling the 
snags of error, which retard its progress. " A 
verb, (say that great scholar,) signifies to be, to do, 
or to suffer;* 

His words fall like the nimble fingers of the 
master — and like the chords of his instrument 
they send forth a music which delights the ear 
even though it does not instruct the brain. 

But Mr. Comly says, " A verb is a part of 
speech, which signifies to act, to be, or to receive 
an action." 

Let us now ask what could have induced Mr. 
Comly to innovate upon the definition given by 
Mr. Murray. Mr. Comly desired to express the 
fact that the tiling denoted by the nominative, 
receives the action, expressed by the principal verb 
of the passive voice ; as, the letter was written. 

Is this fact an important one ? It may be 
important where it has an application. But m 
grammar, it has no application. A definition of a 
verb, may be made without embracing this fact — 
but one never can be made by embracing it. And_ 
for this clear reason — where the voice of the com- 
pound verb is active, the idea of receiving an 
action is as forcible as it is where the voice is pas- 
sive. For instance — "I have written letters." 

But we may be told that the action of writing is 
here received by the objective noun, And what 
then ? Why it was Mr. Comly's intention that 
only the nominative should receive this action, 
as, the letter was written. 



56 



APPEAL. 



No matter, however, what Mr. Comly meant. 
We are concerned with what he has expressed. 
He has expressed no such limitation. 

"A verb is a part of speech which signifies to 
act, to be, or to receive an action." 

What is it that receives the action which the 
verb expresses ? Does the definition answer this 
question ? No. — But even upon the ground that 
the author's definition does restrict this action to 
the nominative noun, what then ? He has taken 
a principle with the view to arrive at a precise 
point, which in its full operation, carries him 
through all the points in his definition. The prin- 
ciple which he has employed to restrict the action 
to the nominative case, carries it to the objective 
case also. And would the author be working like 
a logician to insert a saving clause in his defi- 
nition, and thus cut down this general principle 
to suit the dimensions of his particular situation ? 
No — let him take a new principle — one which 
requires no cutting, and carving, in his mill of 
phrases ! 

"A verb is a part of speech which signifies 
to act, to be, or to receive an action" into the 
subject ! 

We admit that this is curious phraseology — but 
when a man is disposed to reject the limbs which 
nature gives him, he must receive wooden ones, or 
go without ! 

Let vs now hear Mr. Hubbard on the subject 
of the verb. 

"A verb is a word which signifies to be, to act, 
or to be acted upon.'''' 

When we first saw this definition, we withdrew 
our pen. But from further reflection, we thought 
that the definition ought " to be acted upon." 

The work of Mr. Hubbard, is recommended by 
gentlemen of some science, and from this fact 
alone, we feel bound to give it a passing notice, 
Mr. Hubbard admits, in the preface of his work, 
that he has selected from other grammars con- 
siderably — and drawn very heavily upon the work 
of Goold Brown. And if we recollect right, the 
definition before us, is that which Mr. Brown 
formed out of Comly 's definition of the same part 
of speech ! We think, however, that the definition, 
as presented by Mr. G. B. has a little more orna- 
ment about it ! Mr. Brown says, 

"A verb is a word which signifies to be, to do 
an action, or to be acted upon." 

This form of the definition, has a peculiar advan- 
tage over that in which Mr. Hubbard presents it ! 
Mr. Hubbard says — 

"A verb is a word which signifies to be, to act, 
or to be acted upon." 

Now, when we say to act, we cannot proceed, 
and point out what we act, unless we go by 
Car dell, and say to act tin action ! ! But in using 
"to do" instead of "to act," one is able even 
without Mr. C. to express distinctly what he acts — 
for he can then say, as lias Mr. Brown, to do an 



action ! ! Thus, Mr. Brown renders all plain— for 
without the word, action, the pupil would be very 
likely to think that the meaning might be to do 
something besides actions ! ! 

" To be acted upon." 

In what light is this clause to be taken ? Or, 
is it not designed for the light ? What word is 
there in the English language, which signifies 
" to be acted upon ? The noun, blow, comes as 
near this mixed idea as any other word — but even 
this does not fully answer. This word, however, 
may be a noun, and a verb — and that all may be 
conducted upon fair principles, we shall give the 
word as it is defined to be a noun ; and also as it 
is defined to be a verb — we shall then leave it to 
the reader to say whether blow as a noun, or blow 
as a verb, is made a verb by the clause — " signi- 
fies TO BE ACTED UPON !" 

As a noun it is thus defined — blow, a stroke. 
As a verb, it is thus defined — blow, to plant, 
to bloom, to blossom ? 

Any word representing action or being, is a 
verb ; as, Write, be, think. — Pardon Davis. 

How can write represent action unless it is the 
name of action I ? And, if write is a name, is it 
not a noun! ? 

Does not the nouns, action, and being, used in 
this very definition of a verb, represent action, and 
being ! ! ? Why, then, are not action, and being, 
verbs ! ! ? Will it be said that the word, action, 
does not represent action ! ? Will it be said that 
the noun, being, does not represent being ! ? 

Allow us to repeat this definition of a verb : 

"Jny word representing action, or being, is a 
verb." 

Ah ! and does it follow from this that no other 
words are verbs ! ! ? 

Every teacher of a public school, is a human 
being. Does it follow from this that no being 
who does not teach a public school, is human ! ! ? 
Even if all the words which signify action or being, 
were verbs, would it follow that no others are 
verbs! ? Verbs express hundreds, and hundreds of 
things besides, action, and being. 

Now, if the illustration on page 53, of the mean- 
ing of verbs, is correct, and surely it is proved 
from examples, how diminutively does the British 
definition, " being, action, or suffering," appear ? — 
a mere mouse, laboring to swallow an ox! But 
the limitation of the British definition is not its 
worst fault. The definition is designed as a kind 
of net in which to catch verbs only, but it seems 
much better adapted to the catching of nouns ! 
Verbs can hardly be driven into it : but nouns 
can not be kept out of it ! " Mend it," mend it I 
It has been mended with every kind of material, 
already, and by all sorts of workmen. Some have 
tampered with it till it will hold nothing ; others 
have patched, and overlaid it till no eye can dis- 
cern what it is, or what it contains — and among 



APPEAL. 



57 



them all, it has lost the life of words and the 
comeliness of language. 

THE SUBSTITUTE. 

1. Some of the old school grammarians say that 
the actor himself gives the noun the nominative- 
case character ; as, 

" The book was read by me ! .'" 

Others of this class of scholars, say that the 
subject itself gives the noun the nominative-case 
character; as, 

John, thou wast punished by thy teacher ! • 

But the new school grammarians repudiate the 
doctrine that the actor himself infuses into the 
noun, the nominative-cn.se character : they reject 
this doctrine as witchcraft. 

What ! can the thing itself impart to its mere 
name, any sort of character ? More especially, 
can the thing infuse into its mere name, a charac-. 
ter which the thing does not possess ! ? Has the 
actor himself the nominative-case character ? No, 
no! How, then, can the actor infuse into its mere 
name this character ! ? Preposterous ! As well 
may it be said that a coward can impart martial 
courage to his name ! ! ! 

They tell us that a subject is the thing mainly 
spoken of. But of what does the subject character 
consist? Does the subject character consist of the 
mere fact that the thing is principally spoken of? 
If it does not consist of this fact, in the name of 
philosophy, of what does it consist ? Let the 
subject character, however, consist of what it may, 
we declare that the doctrine that the thing, the 
real subject, imparts this character to its mere 
name, is nothing but witchcraft. The doctrine, 
that the subject character, be it what it may, is 
translated through the pores of the subject into 
the name of the subject, where it is changed into 
the nominative-case, is neither more nor less, than 
the doctrine of miracles I We reject the doctrine 
of the formation of this character in the subject, — 
we reject the doctrine of the translation of this 
character from the thing to the name of the thing, 
— and we reject the doctrine of the transubstan- 
tiaiion of this character into the nominative case ! 
No being but God himself, can do these mighty, 
these wonderful, works. Murray ! he attempt to 
perform these feats ! ? No ! no ! Murray, and all 
his jugglers, must here fail, as did the enchanters 
and the soothsayers of Egypt, in their attempt to 
imitate the thunder, and lightning, the tempest, 
and pestilence, which the minister of God spread 
over that land. 

The old school grammarians say that the verb 
character is derived from the thing which the 
word signifies. But what is the verb character ? 
They inform us that " A verb is a word which sig- 
nifies being, action, or suffering.' 1 '' 

This definition, however, does not answer the 
question. This definition tell us what a verb sig- 



nifies — it does not even undertake to inform us in 
what the verb trait of character consists. 

We have shown that nouns and other parts of 
speech signify the same things. We must, then, 
repeat the question : 

What is the verb trait of character ? Is the verb 
trait of character the fact that the word signifies 
being, action, or suffering? No! no! nothing 
like it. 

The verb trait of character, is the capacity of 
the word to aid in forming a cordiction. 

This simple capacity which has nothing to do 
with the signification of the word, is the ear-mark 
that distinguishes the verb from all other branch 
words. 

And to express this characteristic of the verb, 
we have formed the following definition which we 
offer as a substitute for the old one. But the verb 
is in possession of four distinct powers which are 
never exerted by any other words, hence in our 
substitute, we shall include these four powers that 
are peculiar to the verD. 

THE VERB DENOMINATION, 

Is a large class of cordictive branch words 
which act in a quadruple, triple, double, or single 
capacity, as occasion requires ; as, 

1. John loves his enemies, John has books. 
Quadruple. 

2. John will love his enemies ; Go thou. Triple. 

3. John having a book, he read aloud. Triple. 

4. Jolin being wise, we took his advice. Double 

5. John will love his enemies. Single. 

6. John will be good. Single. 

7. John will have come by ten o'clock. Single. 

[The same definition in another form.] 

THE VERB DENOMINATION, 

Is a large class of cordictive branch words 
which exert, or surrender their cordictive, ascri- 
bing, tense, and their significant power, as occa- 
sion requires ; as, 

1. I have a book. 

Here have exerts its four powers, 

2. I can have a book. 

Here can exerts its four powers. But have 
surrenders three ; have exerts its significant power 
only. 

3. John can be good. 

Here can exerts its four powers. But be surren- 
ders three ; be exerts its ascribing power only. 

4. John will have come by ten o'clock. 

Here will exerts its cordictive, its significant, 
and its tense power. 

Have exerts its tense power only. Come exerts 
its significant power only. 

Have, Be. 
Have, and Be are the only verbs which are 



53 



APPEAL. 



required to surrender both their cordictive, and 
their significant power, on any occasion. 

Where be, or been is used to ascribe something 
which is expressed by other words, it surrenders 
both its cordictive, and its significant power ; as, 

1. John can be good. 

2. James will be a good boy. 

3. Joseph has been good. 

4. Nathaniel will have been in the city three 
weeks next Monday. 

1. In the first be ascribes the goodness, expressed 
by good, to John. 

2. In the second, be is used to ascribe the pre- 
dicate, a good boy, to James. 

3. In the third, be, thrown into been, ascribes 
the goodness denoted by good, to Joseph. 

4. In the fourth, been, (which is be in another 
form,) is employed to ascribe Nathaniel to the city 
— or rather, to ascribe him to the place denoted 
by in. In the following, however, be exerts its 
significant power only : — 

John must be. 

That is, he must exist. 

Have. 

Where have is used to fix the time of the mono, 
it surrenders its ascribing, its cordictive, and its 
significant power ; as, 

1. John could have written last week. 

2. Nathaniel will have been in Philadelphia 
three weeks next Monday. 

3. I shall have seen my father by one o'clock 
to morrow. 

4. I shall have a book soon. 

In the fourth, have retains its significant power, 
which it exerts in expressing possession. 

5. I have written several books. 

Here have surrenders its significant, but retains 
its cordictive, its ascribing, and its tense power. 

1. I have a book. (Exertion of the four 
powers.) 

2. They do the work. (Exertion of the four 
powers.) 

3. I can have a book. {Can. Exertion of the 
four powers.) 

4. Has he a book. (Exertion of the four 
powers.) 

5. I have written a book. (Have exerts three 
powers — written one.) 

6. I can have a book. (Have exerts its signifi- 
cant power only.) 

7. They do write books. (Do exerts its cordic- 
tive, its ascribing, and its tense power — write 
exerts its significant power only.) 

8. I am sick. (Am surrenders its significant, 
but exerts its cordictive, ascribing, and its tense 
power.) 

9. I am. (Here am exerts its four powers. 
Am here expresses existence.) 



But, as the works on whose definitions of the 
verb, we have already commented, have been im- 
proved by John S. Hart, Joseph R. Chandler, &c, 
&c, we deem it important to show what these 
Murray menders say upon the verb. 

John S. Hart says that : 

" A verb is a part of speech used to assert or 
affirm ; as, the boy sleeps." 

To doubt the correctness of this proposition as a 
definition of a verb, would be- sacrilegious. 

This is the language of the Pope of the public 
schools, and it must be considered as canonical, 
in grammar, as the words of St. Paul in religion. 

Still with all the sacred drapery with which 
this definition is attired, it can not awe us into 
perfect silence. 

This definition of a verb, though given by the 
Papal See himself, does not seem to us to be suf- 
ficiently Catholic to include the verb in interroga- 
tive propositions ; as, is John sick ? Do they write 
slowly ? 

As here is no assertion, or affirmation, is, do, 
and write are not verbs ! ! 

Nor can we see in what way this definition of 
a verb includes the verbs in imperative sentences ; 
as, Go thou. 

Now, unless Mr. Hart can show that when we 
command persons to go, we actually affirm that 
they are now in the act of going, how can go be 
made a verb ? ! ! 

In short it seems clear to our minds that this 
definition of a verb embraces all the nouns, and all 
the pronouns which are in the nominative case, in 
affirmative sentences, and excludes all the verbs 
which are in imperative, interrogative, petitiona- 
tive, and in subfirmative sentences. 

1. "The boy sleeps:' 

That sleeps is used to aid the word, boy, in 
making the affirmation, is obvious. But, while it 
is obvious that sleeps is used to aid the word, boy, 
to form the cordiction of the sentence, it is clear 
that boy is used to aid the word, sleeps, to form 
the same affirmation ! ! Hence, if sleeps is a verb 
because it aids in the formation of the assertion, 
by parity of reasoning, the noun, boy, is a verb too ! 
"A verb is a part of speech used to assert or affirm ; 
as, the boy sleeps.' 1 '' (Hart's Grammar, p. 61.) 

In a note, written in very bad English, Mr. 
Hart says, " This is true of no other part of speech, 
and may be considered the distinguishing charac- 
teristic of the verb." (Page 61.) 

What is "frue of no other part of speech ?" 

Why, it is true of no other part of speech that 
the verb is used to assert or affirm .' ! ! 

But is not the noun used to assert or affirm ? 
And is not the pronoun used to assert or affirm 1 
Can an assertion, an affirmation, be made without 
the use of a noun, or a pronoun ? Why does Mr. 
Hart use the noun, boy, in the example by which 
he attempts to illustrate his definition of the verb ? 



APPEAL. 



59 



Why does he not make the assertion without this 
noun ! ? [Sleeps .'] 

It is true of no other part of speech that the 
verb is used to assert, or affirm ! 

According - to Mr. Hart's definition of a verb 
not one of the following syllabanes, has a verb : 

To walk. To sleep. 

Is it said that the President is ill ? 

Pardon our transgressions. . 

Forgive our sins. 

These syllabanes contain no assertion ; hence 
they have no verbs ! I 

It is true of no other part of speech that the verb 
is used to assert, or affirm . .' 

That is, it is true of no other man that John S. 
Hart has given a definition of a verb, which ex. 
eludes all verbs from interrogative, imperative, 
petitionative, and conditional sentences ! ! 

And it is true of no other man, Joseph R. 
Chandler excepted, that John S. Hart makes the 
verb the only word which is used to affirm or 
assert '. I 

JNow, as Mr. Hart has made the verb the only 
word which is used to assert, or affirm, he would 
be glad to make his Grammar the only one which 
can be used in the Public schools. 

To accomplish the first, he emblazons his prin- 
cipalship in relation to the High School, and his 
membership in respect to the American Philoso- 
phical Society, upon the title page of his book. 
And to secure the latter, he requires all the young 
gentlemen sent from the Grammar schools, for 
admission into the High School, to be examined 
in his own Grammar ! ! So that what with his 
principalship, and what with his membership, Mr. 
Hart has managed to make many believe that he 
has actually mended up the old grammar with 
considerable skill ; and partly with this impression, 
and partly by coercing the masters in the public 
Grammar schools, to use his book, by rejecting 
the young gentlemen who are not able to say, 

" A verb is a part of speech used to assert or 
affirm," he has succeeded in forcing several to 
use a book in which there is neither grammatical 
truth, nor grammatical English ! 

But, although Mr. Hart's definition does not 
furnish the true ear-mark of a verb, it does give 
the important fact that a verb is a. part of speech. 

We should all feel thankful for this information. 
With this clear statement, that the verb is a mere 
part of the language, we shall not be very liable 
to adopt the error, that the verb is the whole, the 
entire language ! ! ! 

True, from a slight glance, this seems impossi- 
ble ; but if John S. Hart can imagine that he 
constitutes the entire American Philosophical So. 
ciety, as he himself intimates, may not many 
people imagine that the verb constitutes the entire 
English Language ! ! 



Mr, Chandlers definition of a verb. 

"Verbs generally express what is declared of 
some object or its existence." [Page 11.] 

That is, there must be something declared of an 
object; and the word which expresses this some, 
thing, is a verb. 

In what way to illustrate this idea by examples, 
we know not. Mr. Chandler, however, employs 
the following sentences : 

Verbs. Verbs. 

"Charles writes. William reads." 
" The people worship. The birds sing." 

"Charles writes." 

Here the something which is declared, is that 
Charles, not Joseph, writes. And writes, says 
Mr. Chandler, is a verb because it expresses this 
something. What something ? Why, that Charles 
writes. But can writes express the fact that 
Charles writes ! ? Let us see. 
Writes^ — 

But who writes ! ? This is not expressed by 
writes ! 1 Hence writes is not a verb 1 1 1 To ex- 
press the fact that Charles writes, the word, 
Charles, should stand in juxtaposition with 
writes; as, 

Charles writes. 
"Verbs generally express what is declared of 
some object." Now, that which is here declared, 
is that Charles writes. But does writes express 
the fact that Charles writes ! ? 

What is it which expresses the fact that it is 
Charles, and not Joseph, who writes ! ? We 
somewhat think that the fact that it is Charles, 
and not another, is expressed by the proper noun, 
Charles ! ! ! 

"Verbs generally express what is declared of 
some object." 

Who that has glanced at the outside of Mr. 
Chandler's head, through the medium of the pic- 
tures which adorn several of our print shops, can 
believe that this definition of a verb, is a true 
portrait of the inside of the same part of this dis- 
tinguished person ! ? That this definition of a 
verb, however, is a true drawing of the inside of 
his head, is obvious from the consideration that he 
himself made it ! ! ! The pictures in the print 
shops give the crust only; but this definition of a 
verb, gives the pulp itself! ! .' 

" Verbs generally express what is declared of 
some object." 

1. "Mr. Chandler is a very great grammarian." 
The something which is here declared of Mr. 

Chandler, is that he is a very great grammarian. 

Before is, then, can be called a verb, it must 
express this entire fact, or predicate of Mr. 
Chandler ! ! ! 

2. " Mr. Webster is now in Congress." 

What is here declared of Mr. Webster ? Why, 



60 



APPEAL. 



that he is in Congress. But does is express this 
fact ! ? If is expresses this entire fact, why not 
use is alone — is ! ! ! 

The teacher who uses Mr. Chandler's Grammar 
does not know what this definition of a verb is. 

It is here declared that the teacher does not 
know what Mr, Chandler's definition of a verb, is. 
But surely the verb, does know, does not express 
all this ! ! ! 

" Verbs generally express what is declared of 
some object." 

John writes with a gold pen. 

Here it is declared of John that he writes with 
a gold pen. But does writes express all this ! ? 
Nothing like it ! the only idea of which writes is 
significant is that of writing' — writes does not 
express who writes- — nor does this verb express 
with what instrument the writei forms the 
letters ! ! ! 

1. Will John come ? 

2. John, go thou to school. 

3. Pardon our transgressions, 

4. If it rains I 

Here are four sentences — yet if Mr. Chand- 
ler is right, there is not one verb employed ! ! ! 

The first is an interrogation — hence there is 
nothing declared of an object. 

The second is a command — hence there is 
nothing declared in it of an object. 

The third is a petition; and the fourth is a 
svhfirmation. 

We find the following note appended to Mr. 
Chandler's definition of a verb: 

" Verbs are to a sentence, what a vowel is to a 
word ; that is, as without a vowel no word can be 
formed, so, without a verb no perfect sentence, 
however short, can be made." [P. 47.] 

We will not say that there is a "screw loose 
here" but there are certainly several wanting ! ! I 

Here is the doctrine which Mr. Hart attempts 
to inculcate that no word but a verb, can aid in 
the formation of a sentence. But surely what 
Mr. Chandler here says of the verb, may be said 
of both nouns, and pronouns : 

Nouns, and pronouns are to a sentence what a 
vowel is to a word ; that is, as without a vowel no 
word can be formed, so, without a noun, or pro- 
noun no perfect sentence, however short, can be 
made ! ! 

Just before the publication of Chandler's Gram- 
mar almost every body was notified by a special 
proclamation in the hand Bill form, that the 
memorable event would soon happen. And at 
length the book itself actually appeared according 
to the hand Bill prediction. 
It came forth, labeled 
'•' Chandler's common school Grammar." 

From Science hill, loud peans came 
To Genius, Learning, and to Fame, 
The publishers exulting, said 



A Grammar rare, is being made 
By the great Grammar King himself, 
Which will lay Murray on the shelf. 
" The house is being built," says Joe, 
This phrase shall soon be all the go, 
For I, the King, will have it so. 
And Science hill be brought so low 
That all who on this Grammar feast, 
Will reach it with one step at least. 
And, what we more than all desire, 
Our speech will fewer words require, 
Since all that can be said or done, 
Will be expressed by verbs alone ! ! 



CHAPTER XI. 



"Mood or mode is a particular form of the verb, 
showing the manner in which the being, action 
or passion is represented." 

The nature of mood may be more intelligibly 
explained to the scholar, by observing that it con- 
sists in the change which the verb undergoes, 
to signify various intentions of the mind, and 
various modifications and circumstances of ac- 
tion; which explanation, if compared with the 
following account and uses of the different 
moods, will be found to agree with, and illustrate 
them. — Murray. 

This definition is so far from the true character 
of mood, that we do not hesitate to say the whole 
is unfounded. The mood of a verb has no connec- 
tion with its forms, with its changes. 

" There are five moods of verbs, the indicative, 
the imperative, the potential, the subjunctive, 
and the infinitive." 

The Indicative Mood simply indicates, or 
declares a thing ; as, he loves, he is loved — or it 
asks a question ; as, Does he love ? Is he 
loved ? 

The Imperative Mood is used for commanding, 
exhorting, entreating, or permitting ; as, Depart 
thou ; mind ye ; let us stay ; go in peace. 

The Potential Mood implies possibility or liberty, 
power, will, or obligation ; as, It may rain ; he 
may go or stay ; I can ride ; he would walk ; they 
should learn. 

The Subjunctive Mood represents a thing under 
condition, motive, wish, supposition, &c, and is 
preceded by a conjunction, expressed or under- 
stood, and attended by another verb ; as I will 
respect him, though he chide me ; were he good 
he would be happy ; that is, if he were good. 

The Infinitive Mood expresses a thing in a 
general and unlimited manner, without any dis- 
tinction of number. — Murray. 

The definition says that mood ig a particular 
form — if so, the form, peculiar to a certain mood, 
must be fixed, and unchangeable so long as the 



APPEAL. 



61 



verb is of the same mood ; otherwise, there is no 
particular form in the case. 

1. "The imperative mood is used for command- 
ing, exhorting-, entreating or permitting ; as, 
Depart thou ; mind ye ; let us stay ; go in 
peace." 

Let us now put these verbs into their indicative 
form, or mood, and see whether they continue in 
the same shape in which they are in the impera- 
tive : 

Example. — We depart, we mind, they stay, 
ye go in peace. 

Reader, observe the verbs in both setts of exam- 
ples. Arc they not of the same form in both ? 
The imperative mood, therefore, is the indicative; 
and the indicative, the imperative 1 1 This is not 
quibbling, reader, for we are told, by the definition 
of mood, that it is a particular form of the verb. 
Hence, as the imperative form, and the indicative 
form, are the same, there can be no distinction 
between the two moods. 

Let us now put the same verbs into the infini- 
tive mood. To depart; to mind ; to let; to stay ; 
to go. 

Do these verbs vary their forms ? How, then, 
can they change their mood ? For the form of the 
verb is its mood ! ! 

2. " The potential implies possibility, liberty, 
power, will, or obligation. Example : I can 
write. 

Is it the form of can, which expresses the power 
to do the action, denoted by write ? No. The 
body, the trunk, of the word, denotes this power. 
Where would be the use of giving a word, a. form, 
synonymous, in meaning, with the word itself 1 
Is it the true province of can to denote power. 
But it may be said that can is the form, or mood 
of write. Let us examine this point. If can is a 
part of write, it is clear that can, and write make 
but one word. Write denotes the action of making 
letters with a pen ; can expresses the power, or 
ability of doing it. But is it true that the same 
verb expresses both the action, and power of doing 
it? No. 

Again — can is called an auxiliary verb ; and 
write is called a principal — are there, then, not 
two verbs here ? Two names have been given: 
why imply by giving two names, that there are 
two things, or words, if, indeed, there is but 
one? 

Perhaps some may contend that because can is 
auxiliary to write, it can with propriety be identi- 
fied with write : hence, both make but one. If 
can is to be considered as a mere part of write, 
simply because it is secondary to it, should not the 
adjective, and its noun be consolidated, and thus 
call both words one noun ! ? should not the verb, 
and the adverb be identified one with the other, 
by calling both, one part of speech ? should not 
the article, and the noun become woven into one 
another also, by styling both a noun ! ? And 



should not the preposition be cemented to the 
noun, and the noun to the preposition, and thus 
diminish the number of tho parts of speech by 
including of hats under the name, noun? 

But are words less distinct as individuals, 
because they are secondary to others ? Shall the 
sub-officers enter into, and make a part of, the 
individuality of the superior ? Each officer has 
his province, and so does each word have its. 

Can denotes the power ; and writes the action 
about which the power is to be employed. 

Docs it appear from the closeness of the two 
words that one is a mere part of the other ? Is 
not can placed that distance from tvrite, which 
shows that it is a distinct word ? Is it united with 
it in orthographical framework ? 

In truth, however, can is not secondary to write. 
Can holds no framework relation with write. 
Does can ascribe. the ability to the action itself, or 
does it attribute it to the person denoted by 11 
" I can write." 

Whether the real power is more, or less, 
important than the real action is not the point ! 
And it is well that this is not, for all the philoso- 
phy of which man is master, would not be suffi- 
cient to solve the problem. One thing, however, 
is clear ; namely, that so far as the furnishing of 
the material out of which the sentence character 
of the above frame-work of words, is formed, gives 
rank, standing, importance, to words, can stands 
much higher than write. Can, and write both 
contain the first principles of a sentence character 
— but the sentence character of the above assem- 
blage of words, is formed by the concurrent exer- 
tion of / and can. The affirmation, the sentence 
character, respects power, ability — I can. I can 
write. Not — I write. 

" The potential mood implies possibility, liberty, 
power, will, or obligation."* 

The next reflection which we shall offer upon 
this definition, is that it embraces many adjectives, 
and adverbs, and includes many, very many, verbs 
that are in the indicative — 

The verbs in italic, in the following examples, 
are in the indicative — 

1. He ought to be here : (moral obligation.) 

2. They liberated us from this bondage : (liberty.) 

3. We freed them from those fetters : (liberty.) 

4. We please ourselves, not others : (liberty.) 

5. The articles incline me to purchase : (will.) 

6. I mean to write : (will.) 

7. He intends to be good : (will.) 

8. I wish the man would appear : (will.) 
Perhaps John is wilful. 

Perhaps is an adverb, and certainly denotes 
possibility; wilful is an adjective, and surely 
expresses will. 

With respect to the verbs in the preceding 

* To this attempt at a definition of this mood, John 
Comly adds the item of duty. 



62 



APPEAL. 



instances, we have no hesitation in saying-, that 
they all, individually taken, imply one, or another, 
of the items which make up this singular descrip- 
tion of a useless mood. And many of the verbs 
express in a direct way the very items which this 
mood represents. 

Another objection which we offer to this 
attempt, is the fact that the very signs of the 
potential mood, associate themselves with those of 
the subjunctive ; as, it may rain, If it may rain ; He 
may go, or stay, JjThe may go,or stay; I can ride, 
If I can ride ; He would walk, Whether or if he 
would walk; .He may go or stay, If he may go or 
stay ;'They should learn, If they should learn. 

Now, we ask, in which mood the verbs that are 
attended by the two different signs at the same 
time, are to be. If, places the verb in the subjunc- 
tive mood, and can, in the potential ! ! ! The truth 
is, that if the potential mood is continued, it will 
be important to have a new mood ; for the verbs 
which are thus liberally furnished with modal 
signs, are in the. subjunctive potential mood ! ! • 

We shall now subjoin a few remarks upon the 
manner in which Mr. Murray supports the poten- 
tial mood. The course he adopts is presented 
under the 73d page of his duodecimo work. The 
remarks commence thus : 

" That the potential mood should be separated 
from the subjunctive, is evident from the intricacy, 
and confusion which are produced by their being- 
blended together ; from the distinct nature of the 
two moods, the former of which may be expressed 
without any condition, supposition, &c, as will 
appear from the following- instances : — ' They 
might have done better.' ' We may always act 
upright.' ' He was generous, and would not take 
revenge,' 'We should resist the allurements of 
vice.' ' I could formerly indulge myself in things, 
of which I cannot now think but with pain.' " 

" The former of which may be expressed with- 
out any condition or supposition." 

1. I may be there at ten ; and I may not till 
eleven. 

Here, the potential is certainly identified with 
the subjunctive, for here is contingency. 

2. " They ihight have done better ;" it is hard 
judging, however. 

Is there no uncertainty here ? ! 

3. They may act uprightly, and they may not ; 
time alone will decide. 

Is there no uncertainty here ? 

Mr. Murray's object in the introduction of the 
potential mood, is, according to his own language, 
to classify those verbs which, in his opinion, have 
a mood distinct from the subjunctive. But has he 
done this ? that is, has he effected this classifica- 
tion ? The preceding examples answer, no ? 

Again, says Mr. Murray : 

" Some grammarians have supposed that the 
potential mood, as distinguished above from the 
subjunctive coincides with the indicative. But as 



the latter * simply indicates or declares a thing,' it 
is manifest that the former, which modifies the 
declaration and introduces an idea materially dis- 
tinct from it, must be considerably different. * I can 
walk,' ' I should walk,' appear so essentially dis- 
tinct from the simplicity of, ' I walk,' ' I walked,' 
as to warrant a correspondent distinction of 
moods." 

What ! why this shift, why this strange obli- 
quity. If the first ground is firm, why has Mr. 
Murray left it ? Why does he now resort to the 
simple, and the complex state of the verb, to sup- 
port that very mood which he had before placed 
on a different basis ? Why not return to the 
very principles of that mood to support it ? Look 
at this — 

"'I can walk,' 'I should walk,' appear to be 
so essentially distinct from the simplicity of * I 
walk,' ' I walked,' as to warrant a correspondent 
distinction of mood." 

It seems, then, the difference between the poten- 
tial mood, and the indicative, is that the former has 
an auxiliary, and a principal verb ; but the latter, 
a principal only ! ! "I can walk' 1 '' is compound ; 
" I walk'' 1 is simple. But, how will this learned 
author dispose of the following — ■ 

1. "I can walk;" Potential. 

2. " I will walk ;" Indicative ! ! 

3. " I should walk ;" Potential. 

4. " I have walked; 1 ' Indicative!! 

Can it be said that the indicative is here more 
simple than the potential ! ! 1 ! 

This great philologist remarks that one is so 
much more complex than the other, that a corres- 
pondent mood is justified. If a correspondent 
mood is denoted by potential, we are ignorant of 
the import of the two words. It appears to us, if 
the phrase "correspondent mood,^ has any mean- 
ing, it denotes one which will touch, and present, 
the difference between the two verbs " can walk," 
and "walk." Hence, instead of potential, it should 
be compound mood. According to the deliberate 
studied course of this great philological pioneer, 
the moods instead of indicative, and potential, 
should be compound, and simple ! 

1. Compound mood — I can walk ! 

2. Simple mood — I walk ! 

3. Compound mood — I should walk ! 

4. Simple mood — I walked ! 

5. Simple mood — If he walks ! 

6. Compound mood — If he will walk ! 

7. Simple mood — To walk ! 

8. Compound mood — To have walked ! 

9. Double compound — Shall have been freed! 
This correspondent mood, then, is seen to be 

very comprehensive, and though in name partially 
compound ; yet in point of fact, entirely simple ! 

" Some grammarians have supposed that the 
potential mood, as distinguished above from the 
subjunctive, coincides with the indicative. But as 
the latter simply indicates or declares a thing, it 



APPEAL. 



63 



is manifest that the former, which modifies the 
declaration, and introduces an idea materially dis- 
tinct from it, must be considerably different." 

And is every different idea to give a distinct 
mood to the verb ? If so, a declaration, and an 
interrogation, afford good ground for two different 
moods ! But yet Mr. Murray places interrogation, 
and declaration, in the same mood ! ! 

Declaration. He is writing. 

Interrogation. Is he writing ? 

If each new or different idea, which the modi- 
fying words introduce, is taken as ground for a 
distinct mood, will, shall, have, and are, give 
different moods : 

1. I icill write; (foretells.) 

2. Ye shall not steal ; (commands.) 

3. I have books; (possession.) 

4. We are punished ; (ascribes.) 

What ! a different idea to give rise to a distinct 
mood ! If so, can, should, must, would, and may, 
pave the way for Jive new moods ! ! — Or, will it 
be said that each of these words, denotes the same 
idea ! ? 

But after all, it will be found — that this poten- 
tial mood is neither more, nor less, than the 
indicative. What is the indicative ? 

" The indicative mood simply indicates, or 
declares ; or, it asks a question." 

Now, will any one pretend that may, can, 
must, might, could, would, and should, do not 
indicate ; that they do not declare ? And will 
any one say that these words do not ask, or 
interrogate ? 

1. He can walk — a declaration! 

2. Can he walk ? — a question ! 

3. They should walk — a declaration ! 

4. Should they, or should they not, walk? a 
question. 

How, then, is the potential mood distinguished 
from the indicative ? Both moods are the same 
mood ! 

Thus much on the principles upon which Mr. 
Murray has attempted to establish the potential 
mood. Let us conclude by a few remarks upon 
the advantages of this mood. And, first : are 
there any advantages resulting from the introduc- 
tion of this mood ? Mr. Murray is so far from 
Bhowing the least profit, the smallest advantage, 
which the learner derives from this mood, 
that he does not even attempt it. In the first 
instance, no one can show that any good is 
derived from this mood; and in the second, if one 
could show an evident advantage from its use, it 
is so vaguely defined, so laxly described, that it 
includes any verb in the language ! This mood 
is a species of usurpation : it seizes verbs which 
belong to other moods. Let us, then, sink the 
floating barge, and suppress this -modal piracy. 

Good writers have long been in the practice of 
using were, in the subjunctive mode, with the 



Uni cordictive pronoun of the pare-theme rcladic- 
tion ; as, if J were there — 

Wert with the Uni cordictive pronoun of the 
prosotheme rcladiction ; as, if thou wert there— 
and were with the Uni cordictive noun or pronoun 
of the pantatheme rcladiction ; as, if John were 
there, if he were there, &c. 

The use of were, and icert instead of vias, and 
wast, is inconsistent with the nature of that rela- 
tion which exists between the cordictive noun or 
pronoun and the verb. Nor is this use of were, 
and wert consistent with the custom of using other 
verbs to accomplish the same object. The object 
is to mark present time by the passed tense form ; 
as, Were I well I would attend; if I were there, I 
would inform him of his danger. That is, were I 
now well, if I were now there, &c. 

But as toas may mark present time with as 
much precision as were, why should were be pre- 
ferred ? That other verbs are used in the passed 
tense form, to mark present time, without any 
peculiar modification, may be seen by the follow 
ing instances : 

1. If he wrote a good hand he might be employed 
as clerk. (Present time.) 

2. Did he write well, I would employ him. 
(Present time.) 

3. Had he a book, he would learn Grammar. 
(Present time.) 

4. Hadst thou a teacher, thou couldst be taught. 
(Present time.) 

Now, uniformity seems to require that wrote, 
did, had, and hadst should be thrown into some 
peculiar form, when their passed tense forms are 
used to denote present time. But instead of seeking 
for uniformity in new forms for all verbs in such 
instances, would it not be wiser to obtain it by 
abandoning were, and wert by adopting was, and 
wast ? 

1. Was I a good writer he would employ me. 

2. Wast thou a good scholar, thou couldst be 
employed in teaching. 

3. If I was in Boston, I could see my friends. 

4. If thou wast well, we would return. 

Were and wert are also used to denote passed 
time, when the cordictive noun or pronoun is 
singular; as, 

If I were in Boston last week, he did not 
know it. 

If thou wert in Boston last week, I did not 
know it. 

If he were in Boston last week, I did not 
know it. 

If lad English consists in a deviation in the 
use of any, or of all the words of our language, 
from its true genius, the above use of were and 
wert is certainly incorrect. 

There are those, however, who will attempt to 
sanction this use — they will resort to the subjunc- 
tive mode. But as this old subjunctive mode is a 
mere grammatical dream, ungrammatically told, 



64 



APPEAL. 



and beyond interpretation, no argument from this 
source can sustain the use of were with any singu- 
lar noun, or pronoun. 

And as for wert, it is a shameful fungus which 
might be severed from our language without 
diminishing the number of its' words,, (The legiti . 
mate form is wast.) 

OF THE INDICATIVE MOOD. 

" The indicative mood simply indicates or 
declares ; or it asks a question." 

To comment on this definition, would be useless,, 
The following instances, in italic characters, not, 
only prove this language very deficient as a defi- 
nition of this mood ; but they must surprise those 
who breathe a full and fervent approbation upon 
the pages of L. Murray's English Grammar. 

1. " When ye shall be entered into the village, 
ye shall find a colt tied." 

" Shall be entered" asks no question ; nor does 
it make any declaration. 

2. When he writes, I will inform you. 
"Writes" is in the indicative; but it neither 

declares, nor asks. 

3. It is said that he is sick. 

Now, it is not declared that he is sick ; it is 
merely declared that this is said of him. To place 
this verb in the indicative, according to Mr. 
Murray's description of this mood, the clause 
should be separated from the rest of the sentence : 

1. He is sick. 

2. Is he sick ? 

The italic clause in the following period, makes 
neither a question, nor a declaration. 

When the mail returns, we shall get some 
news. 

This construction presents a concession. The 
mode of speech is one which leads the mind to 
concede that the mail will return. But a declara- 
tion would be, 

The mail returns to-day, and we shall get some 
news. 

OF THE INFINITIVE. 

" The infinitive mood, expresses a thing in an 
unlimited sense." 

1. I saw John burn his hand. 

To being understood before burn, burn is in the 
infinitive mood. This verb, then, renders this act 
so general, so unlimited, that it is uncertain who 
burned his hand ! ! ! 

It may be proper to give Mr. G. B.'s definition 
of this mood. We take it, not from his "First 
Lines," — but from " his finished labors." We 
shall first give our author's definition of mood 
itself." 

" Moods are different forms of the verb, each 
of which expresses the being, action, or passion 
in some particular manner." 

" The infinitive mood is that form of the verb 



which expresses the action, being, or passion 
in an unlimited manner, and without number or 
person ! 

Let us apply the definition — I told John to 
bring the book, James, was commanded to return 
to the city, Goold Brown is not fit to write a 
Grammar. 

Is not the act of bringing confined, or limited, 
to John as the agent ? Is not the act of returning 
limited to John also ? And, surely, our author 
himself must admit that the act of writing a 
grammar, is limited to Goold Brown 1 ! It is the 
very fact that this act is limited to him, which 
justifies us in using the words "not fit !" 

Now, the infinitive mood is in plain English the 
unlimited mood. And even if there is an unlim- 
ited mood to verbs why is it necessary to recog- 
nise this mood in a grammar ? Is there any thing 
so very remarkable in this unlimited mood that a 
constant recognition of it becomes so important? 
" Yes." What is it ? it is a want of restriction 
to any certain agent ! But why should gramma- 
rians be so particular to notice even in analyzing, 
the verb's want of limitation, while at the same 
time, they are perfectly silent on the verb's 
limitation, — the verb's restriction, to an agent, is 
never mentioned ! Is it not clearly enough to be 
seen even by grammarians, that the unlimited 
mood suggests a limited mood ! The moods, then, 
are two ; namely — 1. Limited, and 2. Unlimited. 

The limited mood is that which restricts the 
being action, or passion to a certain subject ; as, 
Goold Brown finished his labors in 1830 I 

The unlimited mood is that which does not 
restrict the action, or suffering to any certain being, 
or thing ; as, Goold Brown was to finish his labors 
in 1830 ! ! 

Here it is uncertain upon whom cruel fate fixed 
this final act ! 

Will our author contend, in support of his defi- 
nition of the infinitive mood, that this act, as here 
expressed, is not limited to him ? For him to dis. 
own the act itself, would certainly not surprise 
us : But how he can say that this act is not here 
ascribed, limited, to himself, is as surprising to U8 
as it is true to all who have read his definition of 
the infinitive mood ! ! 

Let us now hear this Murray mender on the 
subjunctive mood : 

" The subjunctive mood is that form of the verb, 
which represents the being, action, or passion, as 
conditional, doubtful, or contingent ; as, If thou go, 
see that thou offend not." 

In an observation under this definition, the 
compiler says that, 

" The subjunctive mood is always connected 
with another verb, Its dependence is usually 
denoted by a conjunction ; as, if that, though, lest, 
unless." 

Mr. G. B. first defines mood to be a particular 
form of a verb — he then tells us that the subjunc- 



APPEAL. 



65 



tive mood is that form of the verb, &c. After this 
ho affirms, in his observation, that the subjunctive 
mood is always connected with another verb. Let 
us now examine his own example for the truth of 
this connection. 

" If thou go, see that thou offend not." 
Now, in what way is the form of the word, go, 
connected with either of the other verbs ? Pray, 
is the form of go connected with see, or with 
offend I ? 

But our author is thorough, for he even tells us 
the nature of this connection ! lie says that it is 
the connection of dependence. Nay — he informs 
us what it is which denotes this relation of 
dependence. 

" Its dependence is usually denoted by a con- 
junction ; as, if, that, though, lest, unless.'''' 

It is possible that our author means to inform 
us that the subjunctive form, mood of go, has a 
dependent connection with see, or offend, and that 
if is employed to express this dependence ! ? 

We must recur again to this mender's own 
language — 

" The subjunctive mood is that form which 
represents the being, action or passion, as con- 
ditional, doubtful, or contingent." 

Now, is it go which denotes the doubt, the 
condition, the contingency .' 1 If go represents the 
contingency, where is the use of if! ? If, then is 
not used to denote a dependent connection which 
go has with another verb, but to express a con- 
dition ! ! " If thou go see that thou offend not." 

Now, if the subjunctive mood is constituted of 
doubt, contingency, uncertainty, why are not the 
verbs in the following sentences all in the sub- 
junctive mood ? 

1. " Perhaps John will return when you urge 
him to do so." 

2. ["He may possibly come to day] (if it should 
not rain.") 

Will return, and come are in the indicative ! 

("John will, peradventure, return next week) 
(if I send for him.") 

Will return is a verb in the indicative mood. 
But send. is a verb in the subjunctive mood ! 

The sentence contains two monos ; and there is 
just as much doubt found in the one as in the 
other ! It is not certain that he will come nor is 
it certain that I shall send ! ! 

Let us see which mood has the advantage 
on the score of dependence ! Does my sending 
depend upon John's returning — or does his con- 
ditional return depend on my sending .' ! ? 

(" Peradventure, John will return next week) 
(if I send for him.") 

And what denotes this dependent connection 
which the indicatively expressed event has with 
the subjunctively expressed one ! ? Why, Mr. 
G. B.'s if 1 1 If Goold Brown has mended L. 
Murray, then, indeed, mending consists in an 
enlargement of the breach ! ! 



When we shall have seen that verbs have any 
such moods as grammarians have attempted to fix 
upon them, we shall be glad to confess the sin of 
charging them with laboring for ages to hang hats 
made out of mere imagination upon pins, and 
hooks which they have never been able to find. 

In theory, the subjunctive mood, has never 
been separated from other moods — in practice, 
this mood is the work of chance. In theory, it is 
not found in the genius of our language — and, in 
practice, it has too much of the pendant to bear 
any analogy to the unostentatious appearance of 
the good old Anglo-Saxon style which pervades, 
and distinguishes the English Language. 

What ! is " if he do come." English ! ? 

Is, " if thou wert" English ! ? 

1. " The man writes letters." 

Here is a declaration — this declaration is speech. 
And is the speech itself to be called a mere mood, 
or mode, of speech » ? If we take away the decla- 
ration, the indicative mood, there is nothing left 
which resembles speech at all ! 

2. " Is John here ?" 

The interrogation which alone is the speech, is 
called a mood of the verb, is ! If this mood of the 
verb, then, should be taken from the sentence, 
there would be nothing left but the dead words, 
here, John, and is ! 

Thus the trunk of the tree is degraded to a mere 
twig, to a mere shoot, and, indeed, to nothing but 
the dead bark ! 

These moods of which the old theory says so 
much, are, in truth, the speech itself. They are 
the cordictions of the various assemblages of 
words, which are called sentences. They are the 
life, as cordiction implies, of words. (See Book I. 
p. 55.) 



CHAPTER XII. 

OF tense. 

Tense is the distinction of time. — Murray. 

Tense is the distinction of the time in which 
an action or event occurs. — Comly. 

Tense means time, or the distinction of time. — 
Ingersoll. 

Tense is the division of time. — Greenleaf. 

Tenses are modifications which distinguish 
time. — Hubbard. 

We could cite many more upon this subject ; 
but we deem these sufficient. In making out the 
different tenses, each author has completely aban- 
doned his first definition of tense. Each has 
founded his definition of tense upon time alone. 
But in defining the various tenses, he has built, 
not upon time, but upon the event denoted by the 
verb ! " Tense,' 1 '' says Mr. Murray, " is the dis. 
tinction of time." 



66 



APPEAL. 



The same author remarks immediately after, 
that 

" The present tense represents an action, or an 
event" fyc. 

How is it possible for a distinction of time to 
represent an action ? If tense itself is a distinc- 
tion of time, the present tense is a part of that 
distinction. Mr. Murray has undertaken to define 
the thing itself- — but he has defined only the dis- 
tinctions of the thing ! Tense is the thing to be 
divided, and the present, perfect, imperfect, plu- 
perfect, and the future tense, are the divisions, or 
distinctions of tense. 

" The present tense represents an action or event 
as passing at the time in which it is mentioned ; 
as, I rule, I am ruled." 

Let us try Mr. Murray's success by the follow- 
ing instances : 

1. The paper is ruled ! ! ! 

This action had been done before it was men- 
tioned ; yet this verb is of the present tense ! 
Look again at the above definition of the present 
tense. 

" As passing at the time in which it is men. 
Honed." 

2. The letters are written-! (Done before 
mentioned.) 

The bird is shot. (Done before mentioned.) 

From Mr. Murray's definition of the present 
tense, no verb can be of the present tense except 
the few which represent actions that may be said 
to be completed at any stage of the event. Such, 
for example, as, " I rule, I am ruled, I fear." 

These are events which find a finish whenever 
they cease : they sustain, however, very different 
characters from events in general. These events 
eurely illustrate Mr. Murray's definition of the 
present tense. But as these events are singular 
in their character, his definition must necessarily 
be limited in its application. 

Let us use the same verb, ("rule") in an 
instance of a different character. 

" The paper is ruled." 

This action may have taken place years before 
the time of mentioning it ! 

The glass of water is drunk. 

If the reporter is declaring this action while it 
is going on, how does he know that he has told 
the truth ? Suppose the drinker to have ceased 
without finishing the glass. The fact would not 
then be truly represented. The truth is, that the 
act must be finished before it is reported, or pub- 
lished — otherwise no declaration, confined to the 
present tense, could be depended upon. When the 
act is done, he that declares its completion, knows 
it — but no one can safely assert its finish at the 
very time it is taking place. 

We shall now make an application of the follow- 
ing verbs upon the principle laid down by Mr. 
Murray in his definition of the present tense: 



"Is finished — is done — is paid — is dead — is 
present." 

" The present tense represents an action which 
is passing at the very time in which it is men- 
tioned." As the saddle is finished. 

What ! at the very time when the mechanic is 
laboring on it ? 

The shoes are done. 

And is the shoemaker now working on these 
finished shoes ! ? Suppose the shoes had been com- 
pleted on Monday; and the owner calls on Saturday, 
cannot the shoemaker say — " your shoes are done .'" 
If the shoemaker is right, the grammar-maker is 
wrong. 

Suppose a demand was made of A. in 1820, for 
$1000, and at this time answered. But, in 1827, 
this same demand for some cause, or other, is 
again made of A.; to which A. replies — this 
demand is paid already. 

This language which we have drawn from the 
mouth of A. by an hypothesis, is correct in tense — 
yet it is directly opposed to Mr. Murray's defini- 
nition of the present tense. 

" He is dead." 

The verb is of the present tense ; and, if the 
present tense represents an action which is going 
on while it is mentioned, this person is not dead — 
he is only dying '. '. And, as a dying man is still 
a living man, the New York Gazette which 
announces that Mr. "Jason 1 ' is dead, means to 
assert nothing more than that he is now dying ! ! 
Why, upon this principle every man is now 
dead — 

"■The moment we begin to live, we all begin to 
die." 

IMPERFECT TENSE. 

2. " The imperfect tense represents the action 
or event either as past and finished, or as remain- 
ing unfinished at a certain time past." 

That is, a. finished thing is an unfinished one ! ! 
(Will the reader look at imperfect as defined by 
Walker.) 

But what has time, or tense, to do with the 
finished, or unfinished state of the event? Tense, 
says the author, is the distinction of time. There- 
fore it is absurd to connect it with the progress of 
the work itself. We defy ingenuity itself, to form 
a consistent set of tenses upon the state of the 
action, or event denoted by the verb. Why, so 
unconnected is the state of the action with the 
tense of the verb, that it is perfectly immaterial 
whether the event is done, or not ! For example — 
" John never wrote to his brother Charles." 

Here the action never was even begun — yet the 
verb is of the imperfect tense ! 

To define the different tenses, is to show within 
what periods of time they place, or fix, what is 
denoted by the verb. And the moment another 
item is included, confusion is embraced. If one 
desires to give a definition of man, he must not 



APPEAL. 



67 



attempt to do it by including a pig with him ! Mr. 
Murray promises a definition of the tenses — not a 
description of the state of forwardness of actions ! 
If we drop the state of the event, there is no 
difficulty in defining the various tenses. Look at 
Mr. Murray's present tense : — 

"The present tense represents an action or 
event as taking place at the time in which it is 
mentioned ! ! !" 

Here you see the state of the event, or action 
becomes the basis of this absurd definition. The 
act must be taking place at the very time in which 
it is reported to be finished ! I If we drop the 
state of the event, a definition may be easily given. 

The present tense fixes whatever the verb 
denotes, within a period of time now passing under 
the mind as one continuous whole ; as, " I rule, I 
am ruled, I fear."'' The ptper is ruled — The sad- 
dle is made — The note is paid." 

Yes, if we drop the pig, there will fall with it, 
all the difficulty of defining man ! 

" The imperfect tense represents an action either 
as past and finished, or as remaining unfinished at 
a certain time past ; as, the saddle is finished ! 
The shoes are done ! The demand is paid .' The 
man is dead !" 

" The imperfect tense represents an action 
either as past and finished," says the author — 
hence we say that the above verbs are of the 
imperfect tense ! ! 

Let us now throw out the state of the event, 
and build a definition of the imperfect tense upon 
time alone. 

But why, in the name of reason, should this 
tense be called imperfect ! The time is all gone — 
all perfectly passed off! Hence, 

Imperfection is perfection ! .' We shall under- 
take to account for this British curiosity, at which 
even our American children have gazed with 
astonishment ! 

The declaration of our independence, was made 
fifty years ago. 

Yet " was made" is imperfect I Children in 
America cannot see the propriety of saying that 
tense is the distinction of time — and then calling 
the tense imperfect, that expresses time which is 
perfectly past off! Nor can they reconcile it 
with their ideas of things, as tense is the distinc- 
tion of time, that when the verb alludes to time 
which is but imperfectly past away, it should be 
said to be of the perfect tense ! They think that, 
wrote, in the expression — 

He wrote to his mother thirty years ago, should 
be of the perfect tense. And that "has written," 
in the instance — 

He "has written" to his mother this year, 
should be of the imperfect tense ! They reason 
in this way — u wrote" alludes to a portion of time 
which has perfectly, even to a moment, past away 
— But " has written," to a portion, all of which 
has not yet past off. True, say they, some has 



gone ; but this year, this whole year is but imper- 
fectly gone, since a portion of it still remains with 
us. They do not, in their reasoning, embrace the 
state of the event — nor can they see the least pro- 
priety in so doing. Mr. Murray, however, saw 
so much propriety in embracing this, that he has 
founded all his definitions of the tenses upon it. 
And his simplifiers feel the importance of this 
principle so deeply, that we have not examined 
the work of one who has rejected it! Even Mr. 
G. B., in " his finished labors," holds that the 
action must be completed — 

" The imperfect tense is that which expresses 
what took place within some period of time fully 
past ;" as, John did not hurt himself last week ! 
We did not see him, I admired not his behaviour ! ! 
I could have gone last week ! ! Did all, or even 
any, of these events take place ! ? 

Mr. G. B. did not furnish the world with an 
improved grammar when he finished his labors ! 

Now, did the act of furnishing take place ! ? 

" The imperfect tense represents the action or 
event either as passed and finished, or as remain- 
ing unfinished at a certain time past ; as, ' I loved 
her for her modesty.' ' They were travelling post 
when he met them last year.' " 

Mr. Murray found that actions fixed by the 
tense of the verb to past portions of time, are of 
two sorts ; namely, finished, and unfinished. To 
apply the phrase 4< perfect tense," reasoned he, to 
these actions, would be absurd in the extreme. 
True, reasoned the learned author, the phrase 
"perfect tense," will apply with force where the 
action is done, or finished ; as, " I loved her for 
her modesty." 

But this phrase will apply with a very ill grace, 
indeed, where the action remains unfinished, and 
where the action did not take place ! as, " They 
were . travelling post when he met them" last 
week. 

Here we find Mr. Murray in a dilemma. In 
our opinion, he should here have left out the state 
of the event altogether — here, yes even before he 
arrived at this place, he should have dropt it — he 
should not have embraced it even in his definition 
of the present tense. But he has included it in his 
present — yes, and has built mainly upon it. And 
what has been the result ? We have answered 
this question in advance — we have shown, in 
the first part of this chapter, what has been the 
result. 

" The present tense represents an action or 
event as passing or going on at the very time in 
which it is mentioned ;" as, " the paper is ruled," 
"the shoes are made," "the demand is paid .' .'" 

Now, all these actions are denoted by verbs of 
the present tense — yet all of them had been 
completed before they were mentioned-— perhaps 
years before ! ! 

But Mr. Murray has a certain thing to do — and 
a way of his own, of course, in which to proceed 



68 



APPEAL. 



He proceeds with his reasoning, as we fancy, in 
the following manner : 

" The names are perfect and imperfect — these 
words must be so applied as to be rational in their 
use. But I know that there is no little difficulty 
in bringing them to bear in this way, upon the 
subject of the tenses. Where I would use '■perfect' 
because the time is all gone, I find many actions 
unfinished — as, ' They were travelling post when 
he met them' last week." 

"And where I would apply 'perfect 1 on the 
ground that all the actions are finished, I find that 
some of the period of time within which the verb 
fixes the events, is not yet past of; as, they 'have 
written' to their mother this week." 

" This week is not perfectly past — though the 
act of writing is completed. The state of the 
event must not be given up — I have founded my 
definition of the present upon this basis with great 
success ! ! To depart from this principle seems 
not only imprudent, but impossible. Hence, 
' imperfect must be applied where the time is per- 
fectly gone — Because if is here that the imperfect, 
the unfinished, events occur ; as, ' They were 
travelling post when he met them' last week." 

"And ' perfect? must be applied where the time 
is but imperfectly, or partially past — because it is 
here that the events occur which are in the per. 
fectly finished state ; as, ' They have written to 
their parents this week.' " 

Thus ends the logical view taken of this subject 
by Mr. Murray. Nor do we think it without 
ingenuity. But we could wish that the learned 
author had been correct even at the expense of 
ingenuity. 

" The imperfect tense represents an action, or 
event either as past, and finished, or as remaining 
unfinished at a certain time past ; as, I loved her 
for her modesty. They were walking yesterday, 
to church, when I met them. 

They were walking, yesterday, to church. 

Does it seem likely that this event was not 
^completed yesterday ? Yesterday is " a certain 
time past ;" and, as there is nothing which looks 
like lengthening out the journey — like continuing 
it over night — like bringing it into this day, the 
fair inference is that this act was finished within 
the past time here mentioned. 

They were drinking a glass of brandy last 
year. 

Is there any thing here which looks like a con- 
tinuation of the act requisite to dispose of this 
small quantity of poison, over to this moment ! ! 
Who knows, then, that this event did not take 
place within the specified past time? 

But it may be said that the character of these 
examples, eludes all logic, and baffles all confuta- 
tion. We will, therefore, give Mr. Murray's own 
example : 

" They were travelling post when he met 
them :" 



Who knows how long these individuals contin. 
ued their travelling. Who knows that they did 
not stop at the very moment he met them. There 
is nothing in this example which decides the 
point. They might have continued, and they 
might have closed, terminated the action at the 
time of the meeting. The thing is a matter of 
deduction ; and whatever conclusions are drawn, 
must be drawn from the nature of the event, aside 
from the tense of the verb. Is it more likely that 
he met them at the commencement, or middle, 
than it is that he met them at the closing step of 
this travelling ? Be this as it may, the tense of 
the verb can not be affected by it. The point, 
whether they continued after he met them, or 
whether he finished at the very moment of meet- 
ing, cannot be decided by any thing which this 
example presents. The imperfect, then, has been 
built upon a mere uncertainty: an uncertainty, 
too, which has nothing to do with the tense form 
of the verb ! 

Let us next show that this definition of the 
imperfect tense does in truth include the verb of 
the pluperfect. 

1. They had been travelling two hours before 
he met them ! 

"Had been travelling," is of the pluperfect tense ; 
although it is as well described by the preceding 
attempt at a definition of the imperfect, as the 
example given by the author in illustration of his 
imperfect. 

The received definition of the perfect tense: 

" The perfect tense not only refers to what is 
past, but conveys an allusion to the present time ; 
as, I have seen the person." 

PLUPERFECT TENSE. 

Pluperfect denotes something more than perfect. 
We are told that it is inconsistent to say more 
perfect, most perfect. This is, therefore, the 
condemnation of the phrase, pluperfect tense ! 
Nothing, says the old theory, is more than perfect ; 
and consequently, none can say with propriety 
that one thing is more perfect than another. 
How, then, can one tense be more perfect than 
another ? 

We can understand how one action can be per- 
fect before another ; but, it is difficult to see that 
one can be more perfect than another. 

Example. — John had written a letter before his 
teacher returned. 

We shall now subjoin a few promiscuous obser- 
vations upon the subject of tense as applied to 
certain words in our language, and close the 
chapter. 

And first — it is said that should is imperfect 
tense — the imperfect tense represents past time : 
as, He wrote last year to his mother. 

Let us, then, say — 

He should write to his mother last year ! ! 



APPEAL. 



69 



Again. Might is of the imperfect tense. Let 
us, then, say — 

He might write to his mother last year ! ! 
How ! he might write last year ! ! He should 
write last year ! ! Perfect nonsense. 

Yes, it is laid down as a sound principle in our 
language, that might, could, would, and should, 
are verbs of the imperfect, or past tense. But 
we cannot properly say, he should write to his 
friend last week. Nor is it correct to say, he might 
write to his friend last year. 

Might, and should, have no allusion to past 
time. They belong to the class of inceptive verbs 
which denote the present time. Would, and 
could, may relate to past time ; as, I could write, 
last year, a better hand than I can this. They 
would return last week. That is, they were 
determined. 

But, in general, these verbs are both of the 
present tense ; as, " I could write, if I had paper ; 
I icould write, if I had a pen." 

Does it appear, then, that our language has 
yet received a grammar suited to its peculiar 
genius ? 

Secondly. — It is said by all who have gone 
before us upon this science, that may have, can 
have, and must have, are of the perfect tense. But 
in the expression, 

God must have known the fate of men before he 
created them, the verb is, in truth, of the pluper- 
fect TENSE ! ! 

Again. In the expression, 
James may have learned his lesson last evening, 
the verb is of the imperfect, or past tense ! ! 

Thirdly. — It is said that the pluperfect tense 
signifies a thing that past prior to some point of 
time specified in the same sentence. If this is a 
correct definition of this tense, the verb might 
have loved, may, or may not, be pluperfect in 
its tense. For example : 

I might have loved her after she returned to the 
city. 

Here the act of loving is represented as having 
been possible after (not before) the other point of 
time. 

Again : The lad should have gone immediately 
after his father bade him ! ! 

Finally, we may see from examples which 
occur every hour, that these very verbs that are 
confined by our British English Grammars, to 
the pluperfect tense, are generally in the imperfect, 
or perfect tense. 

Imperfect; as, He might have learned yes- 
terday. 

Perfect ; as, he might have written this week 
to his friends. 

Might, could, would, and should, are classed 
as verbs of the past, the imperfect tense. And 
this classification is surely intended to respect 
their natural, and common tense characters. Yet 
we assert that these inceptives naturally have the 



present tense. They may be forced from the 
present; and we shall here show in what way 
they may be carried back from their natural time 
to past time. 

1st. By some prefix, alluding to past time; as, 
/ thought that he would return. 

/ thought, is the prefix. 

They concluded that he might recover, I said 
that he should submit. 

2d. By a suitable affix ; as, he could perform 
the operation last year, more skilfully than he can 
this. 

Last year is an essential affix in carrying could 
back to past time. 

They would come to the city, last week, I could 
not accomplish the business in time. 

The clause which carries could back to the past 
time is suggested by the mono, in time. From 
this mono, it may be asked, in time for what? 
Answer — in time to take the stage before it had left 
the city. 

As to should, nothing but a prefix can remove 
it from the present to the past time : no affix can 
be devised which will accomplish the removal of 
this auxiliary from its native rank, or place. 

Is it not strange, then, that the old school gram- 
marians should rank this verb as though, by its 
nature, it belongs to the past time ? 

True, there is much weighty authority bearing 
might, could, would, and should, into the faded 
regions of past time. But with all the weight of 
learned dictums, these verbs will, unless attended 
by prefixes, or affixes, return into -reality, present 
time. And we trust in the power ofcom?non sense, 
to confine them, ere long, to their native home. 
No — we cannot believe that the never-ending 
generations of that portion of the human race, 
which enjoys the unbounded blessing of using the 
English language, is to receive its knowledge of 
this language through the old theory of grammar. 
The time must come when this patch-work of 
error must be torn off. Yes, the strong hand of 
freedom will not only rend it into tatters, but will 
substitute an elastic mantle — one adorned with the 
principles of our own language, which will shape 
to all its deformities, and thereby present its 
irregular figure ! 

To say why any tense in the grammar of our 
language has been called first, or second, future, 
is not very easy ! Why not have the third, fourth, 
and fifth future as well as the first, and second '! 
For instance, I shall have written the letter by six 
o'clock. 

Shall have written is denominated second future ! 
But why second ? Surely it is the first point of 
future time alluded to in the assertion • Six 
o'clock is the second future ! 

Goold Brown's Definition of Tense : 
" Tenses are those modifications of the verb, 
which distinguish time." 

1. The present tense is that which expresses 



70 



APPEAL. 



what now exists or is taking place ; as, " I hear a 
noise, somebody is coming.'''' — Goold Brown. 

" The present tense is that which expresses," &c. 

Is that what ? is that modification. The present 
tense is that modification which expresses what 
now exists, or what is taking place ; as, 

1. Were he now here, he could see his friend. 
Does this form, this modification, were, express 

present time ! ?• 

2. " They were there last week ! !" 

In the first, were is a modification which is 
called present tense ! But in the second, were 
is a modification which is called imperfect tense ! 

1. Were they now here, &c. Present ! 

They were there last week. Imperfect tense ! ! 
What a wonderful difierence there is between 
these two weres in their personal appearance ! 

1. " The boilers burst daily," last year. 

2. The boilers burst daily, this year. 

Burst in the first instance, does not differ much 
from burst in the second : both seem to have the 
same form, the same modification. 

Yet, says Mr. Brown, the first burst expresses 
past time — but the second, present ! " Tenses are 
those modifications of the verb, which distinguish 
time !" — Goold Brown. 

We somewhat think, that unless the monos, 
" last year" and " tins year" are the forms of the 
verb, burst, our author will be compelled to debit 
this case to loss. 

1. Had he a Grammar he might learn his 
lesson. 

2. He had a Grammar last evening. 

The first had is present—the second is imperfect 11 

1. Last evening we put our books on this desk. 

2. Let us now put our books away. 

Put, in the first, is present ! Put, in the second, 
is imperfect ! ! But who that can discover the 
difference between the forms of these two puts, 
{put, put,) can be surprised at this ! ? 

The present tense is that which expresses what 
now exists, or what is going on. — G. Brown. 

1. " The shoes are made." 

2. " The bird is dead." 

3. " The bill is paid" 

Does are made, express what is now going on ! ? 
Nothing like it. Does are made, express what 
now exists. What does now exist ? the shoes. 

" Your shoes are made." 

Does are made express the shoes ! ? Let Mr. 
G. Broion himself reply : 

" The present tense is that which expresses what 
now exists, or is taking place." 

What does exist now 1 The action denoted by 
made, does not now exist — the action is completed 
— finished. 

Your shoes are made already. 

The shoes themselves may exist — nothing else 
can. If, then, the present tense is that which 
expresses what now exists, the tense of are made, 
expresses the shoes 1 ! 1 .' 



These reflections apply to the other examples : 

1. " The bird is shot." 

2. " The bill is paid." 

3. The lad's finger is cut off. 

Is the act now taking place ! ? It has already 
taken place ! Does this action now exist ! ? No 
The tense of " is cut," then, can have no allusion 
to the action. The tense of this verb must express 
the finger : the finger now exists ! ! ! 

4. " John go to school." 

Is John going to school at the very time in 
which he is commanded to go ! ? 

The present tense expresses that which now 
exists, or is taking place. — G. Brown. 

5. " Pardon our iniquities." 

If Mr. G. B's. Grammar is true, this expression 
means that God is actually pardoning us while we 
make the petition ! ! 

6. " John, cut off your finger." 

Is there any modification of the verb, cut, which 
indicates that John is cutting off his finger, while 
he receives this command ! ? 

" The present tense is that which expresses 
what now exists, or is taking place." That is, 
what now exists, or what is now taking place. 

" John, return from school within three hours 
after one o'clock." 

And does the tense modification of return, 
express what is now taking place ! ? 

Again — " Henry is to pay the debt next 
year." 

That is, he is now counting out the money — he 
is now paying the debt ! ! ! 

To pay is a verb in the infinitive mood, present 
tense. The infinitive mood is that form of the 
verb which expresses the action in an unlimited 
manner ! And the present tense is that modifi- 
cation of the verb, which expresses what is now 
taking place ! ! 

The imperfect tense is that which expresses 
what took place within some period of time fully 
passed ; as, We saw him last week, I admired his 
behaviour. Goold Brown. 

Let us put this definition to the test. 

1. "John had written a letter last week before 
I returned." 

" Had written," expresses what took place 
within a period of time fully passed. The act 
was done last week ! 

" Had written," then, is a verb of the imperfect 
tense ! ! 

" The imperfect tense expresses that which took 
place within some period of time fully passed." 

John, is my hat made ? " Yes — it was finished 
last week." My hat, then, is made ? 

Here is made expresses what took place last 
week ! This verb, then, is of the imperfect tense ! 

The first future tense is that which expresses 
what will take place hereafter ; as, I shall see him 
again. Goold Brown. 



APPEAL. 



71 



Why is not go, in the first future tense ? 

" Go thou to school." 

Is not this act to be done after the command is 
given ? This definition of the Jirst future tense 
embraces every verb in the imperative mood ! ! 
Nor is this all — this definition of the Jirst future 
embraces every verb of the second future ! Nor, 
indeed, can we stop here ; for it embraces nearly 
all in the infinitive mood. 

1. Imperative — Go home. Yet to be done. 

2. " Save us from our errors." Yet to be done ! 
Indicative — I shall have seen him by to-morrow. 

Goold Brown. 

" The first future tense is that which expresses 
what will take place hereafter." 

Does not to-morrow mean hereafter ! ? 

Infinitive — John is to return next Monday. 

Is it not here expressed that this act is to take 
place hereafter ! ? Or, is next Monday present 
tense ! ? 

THE SUBSTITUTE. 

The word, tense, means time — hence there is 
not much propriety in applying this word to that 
which merely expressses time. Can a man be 
called a hat, because there is some relation be- 
tween a hat, and a man ? Can the word, tense, 
be applied to the verb because there is some rela- 
tion between a verb, and tense ! ? In this case it 
may be done, for there is a necessity for it. The 
verbs express tense — hence some name expressive 
of this fact should be applied to them. This name, 
perhaps, may be found in the word, 

TENSE. 

Tense is the fourth power of the verb, and is 
exerted in pointing out six different times. 
There are six tenses, viz. : — 

1. Present, 

2. Re-present, 

3. Past, 

4. Prior-past, 

5. Future, and 

6. Prior-future. 

U PRESENT TENSE. 

The present tense is the power which the verb 
exerts in representing time to be in our presence, 
which may be more or less, according to the 
nature of the case ; as, 

1. I am. 

2. Henry rides out daily. 

3. Virtue is commendable. 

4. These merchants purchase their goods in 
Manchester. 

5. God wills whatever comes to pass* 

REMARKS. 

1. I am. 

Perhaps in I am, there is no more present time 
than is occupied in uttering the sentence. 



2. Henry rides out daily. 
Here, from the nature of the case, the present 
time designated by rides, may be long or short. 
Should the practice of riding out daily be con- 
tinued ten years, the period of present time indi- 
cated by the tense of rides, must comprise not 
fewer than one hundred and twenty months. 

3. Virtue is commendable. 
Here, the present time has no end. 

4. These merchants purchase their goods in Man- 
chester. 

Here, the amount of present time must be de- 
cided by the number of years in which these men 
continue in business. 

2. RE-PRESENT TENSE. 

The re-present tense is the time-expressing 
power which a verb exerts in making the passed 
part of an expressed, or implied period, present 
time again; as, Thomas has read his book 
through. 

That is, Thomas has read his book through this 
evening, this morning or this week. [Re, again.] 

3. PASSED TENSE. 

The passed tense is the power which the verb 
exerts in taking a point of time by itself, and 
representing it to be fully passed off — out of our 
presence; as, 

1. They came to me. 

2. The birds flew over the trees. 

3. Mary loved her little brother. 

4. PRIOR-PASSED TENSE. 

The Prior-passed tense is the time-expnessing 
power which a verb exerts in pointing out time 
that passed off before the passed time designated 
by another verb ; as, 

1. [I had seen him before] (he called) (on me.) 

2. [He (that had been dead) sat up,] (and , 
began to speak.) 

5. FUTURE TENSE. 

The future tense is the time-expressing power 
which a verb exerts in representing the time not 
only to be future, but independent of, and discon- 
nected with, every other future time; as, 

1. I will return next week 

2. Jane shall learn English grammar soon. 

3. Should it rain to-morrow, we shall not 
return. 

6. PRIOR-FUTURE TENSE. 

The prior-future tense is the time-expressing 
power which a verb exerts in representing that 
the future time to which allusion is made, will 
come into our presence before another future time 
is mentioned in another mono ; as, 

1. [I shall have seen them] (by ten o'clock.) 

2. {The two houses will have finished their 
business when] (the king shall come to prorogue 
them.) 



APPEAL. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

THE NUMBER AND PERSON OF VERBS. 

When one speaks of the head of a pin, or a 
finger of the hand, he speaks of something which 
exists. But when he speaks of the number, and 
person of a verb, he speaks of what does not 
exist. The non-existence of these properties, as 
attributes of the verb, may account for the man- 
ner in which Murray introduces them : 

"Section 2. Of number and person" 

Verbs have two numbers, the singular and 
plural. — Murray. 

The way in which Mr. Murray has introduced 
this subject, is indicative of much embarrassment. 
The author seems to introduce the number, and 
person of verbs, under a full conviction that 
nothing of the kind belongs to verbs. Yet he 
appears to possess great tact in the management 
of his case — and well he may, for he had been 
thoroughly drilled before in the work of making 
fiction appear a reality. Through his whole 
Grammar he writes as though the things of 
which he speaks, had an actual existence ! Even 
the cases which are obviously without any real 
existence, he explains just as though they were a 
solid reality ! 

When he comes to treat of the number, and 
person, of verbs, he introduces the subject with as 
much formality as he would do any important 
reality J 

"Section second. Of number, and person.'''' 

Well what about number, and person ? Why, 
verbs have number, and person 1 But this is 
saying nothing about number, and person .' This 
is speaking of verbs ! I Had the learned author 
said, — 

Section 2. Of verbs, 
One would have been prepared to give his atten- 
tion to a discussion of the verb. But, as he com- 
mences a new Section under a new title, the 
reader little expects that the things advertised by 
this new head, are to be set aside, and the verb 
resumed for farther investigation. This illusive 
course indicates no imbecility in Mr. Murray. 
On the contrary, it shows a tact which every able 
advocate will employ in a bad cause. When the 
bad points are introduced, this ingenious man so 
mixes them up with those which can be under- 
stood, that the reader thinks that he understands 
the bad points themselves, when, indeed, these 
have been buried under other parts, or left entirely 
out of view. We, then, as the advocates for truth, 
feel bound to compel Mr. Murray to speak to the 
point — and that, too, without equivocation. We, 
therefore, put the questions — 

What is the number of a verb ? 

What is the person of a verb ? 



When Mr. Murray shall have answered these 
questions, he may proceed the best way he can. 
We think, however, that he will then have no 
occasion for the sentence, 

" Verbs have two numbers, the singular, and the 
plural !" 

Observe the manner in which Mr. Murray has 
distinguished these two numbers — 

"As, I run, we run .'" 

What can be the difference between these two 
runs 7 Yes — first run is singular — -and, secondly 
without the least change, this same run becomes 
plural ! It can be clearly understood that J is singu- 
ular, and that we is plural — but in what way, run 
is both singular and plural, is the very thing which 
constitutes Mr. Murray's bad point — and which 
he, in the introduction of this subject, labors to 
evade. 

How has Mr. Murray treated the parts of this 
science, which do 'not rest solely hi the fancy ?__ 
He has not said " of letters," and remarked that 
the English alphabet has twenty-six letters. No — 
he has given a definition of a letter, and then pro- 
ceeded with the other parts of the subject — 

"A letter is the first principle or least part of a 
word." "The letters in the English language are 
called the English alphabet, and are twenty-six in 
number." 

Nor does Mr. Murray, in commencing the sub- 
ject of grammar, proceed to say into how many 
parts the art is divided, before he attempts to 
define what the art is. He does not say, 

" OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR." 

And then state that, — 

" English grammar is divided into four parts ; 
namely, orthography, etymology, syntax, and 
prosody." 

But, after advertising the subject by a proper 
head, he proceeds to give a definition of grammar 
itself — then to make a division of the art into four 
parts. And why has he not pursued this sys- 
tematic course in all instances ? It is because 
the subject, as he has taken it up, does not permit. 
Does not permit ? why ? Because the things of 
which he treats, are generally fancied into being — 
they do not belong to the English tongue — hence 
he can give them no definition. He could not say 
that the number of a verb is this part of a verb — 
nor could he say that number is that part of a verb. 
He could not say that the number is any variation 
of a verb — How, then, could he define it ? 
Thus, 

The number of a verb is just nothing at all 
as, " I run, we run /" 

In speaking of the number of nouns, the author 
proceeds thus : 

" OF NUMBER*" 

"Number is the consideration of an object, as 
one or more." 



APPEAL. 



73 



" Nouns have two numbers, the singular, and 
the plural." 

" The singular number expresses but one thing ; 
as, a chair, a table" 

" The plural number signifies more objects than 
one ; as, chairs, tables." 

Here we find that the author shows his love of 
method — and whenever he is seen to leave this, 
all is not right. 

But mark the difference in the two illustrations 
— " chair" illustrates the singular number of a 
noun — chairs, the plural. How very different are 
the two numbers of the verb illustrated — indeed, 
indeed — " run" is singular, and "run" is plural! 
No variation here — the same animal may be a pig, 
or a puppy — yes, and after all there is neither one, 
nor the other — for the verb has neither a singular, 
nor a plural number. The learner is informed 
that, 

"Number is the consideration of an object, as 
one or more." 

But is there any such property as a " consider- 
ation," about the verb, run ? 

No one can say from this verb, how many per- 
form the act of running • ! Number, therefore, 
belongs not to the verbs, but to the nouns, and 
pronouns. But, we are told that the number of 
actors infuses itself into the action itself — hence 
the sign, or name of the action, is rendered 
singular, or plural, according to the number of 
agents or actors. Hear, hear ! " You recollect," 
say Kirkham, and Ingersoll, " that the nominative 
case is the actor, or subject, and the active verb is 
the action performed by the nominative." " By 
this you may perceive that a very intimate con- 
nection or relation exists between the nominative 
and the verb. Therefore, if any one creature or 
thing acts, only one action at the same instant can 
be done ; as ' the girl writes.' " " The nominative, 
girl, is here, of the singular number, because it 
signifies but one person ; and the verb, * writes,' 
denotes but one action wmich the girl performs ; 
therefore, the verb, ' writes,' is of the singular 
number, agreeing with its nominative, 'girl' " 

When we read the profound discourses of Mr. 
Kirkham, delivered in the form of lectures, we are 
compelled to pause, to consider — the lecturer runs 
so deep that ordinary grammarians cannot pene- 
trate his doctrine. In the instance before us, we 
find him sinking so deep into the relation between 
the verb, and the nominative, that he falls far 
below language — the lecturer has run down to 
things themselves! And we must admit, if a 
grammar was to be made, teaching the relations 
of actions, and things, that Mr. Kirkham, aided 
by Mr. Ingersoll, would be admirably well calcu- 
lated for its formation, It seems to us, too, that 
such a grammar might be rendered very useful to 
the community at large — for what could be more 
advantageous to a lady, or gentleman, than to 
know with certainty that she, or he has, when 



moved, performed, but one single action ! And, 
for the farmer to be made certain that one of his 
oxen performs but just one action, and that both 
perform two, seems to us of much moment ! 

But we must leave the utility of a grammar of 
things, for the principle which the lecturer has 
presented in his simple instance of illustration — 

" The girl writes." 

Here, says the lecturer, is but one action. We 
are now to suppose, of course, that the young Miss 
writes a letter, or two, to her friends. Let us, then, 
put the example into some full, and proper, form — 
as, the girl writes three letters a year, to her friend 
in the country. 

Now, will any rational being, and especially a 
lecturer upon science, pretend that this young 
Miss performs but one action ? An astonishing 
Miss is she who can write three letters in one 
single act ! ! And, indeed, she who can write 
even one letter, in one single act, is rare ! The 
letter must be remarkably brief — or the writer 
uncommonly gifted ! But, admitting the lecturer's 
principle to hold' in its application to things, how 
fallacious is it when applied to words ! When, 
says he, " the action is performed by one single 
! actor, the verb is in the singular number!" Let 
1 us now see this assertion verified. 

The letters were written by one girl. 

Here there is but one actor — yet the verb is 
I plural '. The girl is the actor — she is the writer 
— were written is the verb — and, from Mr. Kirk- 
ham's doctrine, this verb, which is of the third 
person plural, should be of the third person, 
singular 1 

" This letter was written by sixteen girls." 

Here, the agents are sixteen — yet was written, 
is a verb of the singular number I 

" This letter was read by one girl sixteen 
times." 

Here the verb comprehends sixteen acts — yet, 
this same verb is of the singular number! ! The 
number of a verb, then, and Mr. Kirkham's doc- 
trine, are the same thing ; namely, " just nothing 
at all." 

It may be well to examine the way in which 
Mr. Murray has been mended by one, or two, 
who say they have finished their labors. 

The person, and number of a verb are those 
modifications in which it agrees with its subject, 
or nominative, — Goold Brown. 

1. I must write. 

Must write, is a verb of the first person. 

2. Thou must write. 

Must write, is a verb of the second person ! ! 

3. He must write. 

Must write, is a verb of the third person ! .' 

1. " Must write" This modification is called 
first person. 

2. " Must write ." This modification is called 
second person I ! 



74 



APPEAL. 



3. " Must write." And this modification is 
called third person ! ! ! 

Let us now find the modification of this verb, 
which is called the singular number : 

1. I must write. 

This modification is called the singular number 
of must write ! ! 

2. Ye must write. 

This particular modification of must write, is 
called the plural number. 

3. John must write. 

This modification is called the singular number 
of must write .' .' 

What an obvious difference there is between the 
modifications which are called singular and 
plural ! ! ! " Must write" is singular. But " must 
write,'" is plural ! ! ! ! ! 

Then, again, how strikingly different are the 
three person modifications of this verb ! 

" Must write, is first person. — but " must write," 
is second ! ! / And " must write," is third 
person ! ! ! ! 

This is charming indeed. 

Again. — Who is there that can not admire the 
nice difference between the numeral, and the per- 
son, modifications of this verb ? 

" Must write," is first person — but " must write," 
is singular number ! ! ! ! 

This machinery works so finely that we must 
give another instance, or two : 

1. I write. 

Write is a verb of the first person. 

2. " If thou write next week." 
This form of write is second person. 
First person — write. 

Second person — write ! .' .' 

3. " If he write next Thursday." 

But this form of write is third person ! ! ! ! 
Let us now exhibit the different numeral forms 
of write : 

1. I write. Singular. 

2. We write. Plural ! ! 

1. Singular form — write. 

2. Plural form — write ! 1 1 ! 
1. I wrote. 

This form of write is first person, singular 
number ! We regret that Mr. Goold Brown 
finished his labors without informing the pupil 
which particular part of wrote is the person modi- 
fication ; and which the numeral ! Was it not 
that the letter, o, is a tense modification we 
should be inclined to the opinion that this vowel is 
the person modification, and the cross of the t the 
numeral ! 1 

1. I wrote. First person, singular ! 

2. I write. First person, singular ! ! 

There is much which is singular about this 
affair ! But the most singular thing which we 
see, is the fact that the affair itself exists. Look — 
and be amazed: 



The person, and number of a verb are those 
modifications in which it agrees with its subject, 
or nominative. — Goold Brown. 

Murray is handsomely mended up here ! ! 

Mr. Murray attempts to speak of two creatures 
which do not exist, without referring them to any 
genus, or species. Person, and number. 

What are they ? Mr. Murray has not informed 
us. He tells us, however, that they belong to 
verbs. But with what race of beings they are 
classed ; or whether they belong to verbs as ears 
do to heads, and as toes do to feet, or as goods, 
and chattels do to men, Mr. Murray attempts not 
to decide. 

Mr. Goold Brown finding in his teaching pro- 
cess, this delinquency in Murray, quite intolerable, 
undertakes to refer these two creatures to their 
proper category : 

The person and number of a verb, are those 
modifications in which it agrees with its subject, 
or nominative. — Goold Brown. 

It is true that the pupil must examine Murray's 
Grammar in vain for a definition of the person, 
and number of a verb. And it is true that he 
must examine the verb in vain for the modifications 
of which Mr. Goold Brown speaks ! 

" The person, and number of a verb, are those 
modifications in which it agrees with its subject, 
or nominative !" 

Does the verb agree with its nominative in 
modifications ! 7 This is something new. Mr. 
Goold Brown says, in one of his rules in syntax, 
that, 

" A verb must agree with its subject or nomi- 
native in person and number." Page 94. 

The ideas of this rule are not even similar to 
those in the definition of the person, and number 
of verbs. 

1. " The pens are made by John." 

The word, pens, is the nominative, and are is 
the verb. Pen has the s modification — pens. But 
has are this modification ! ? 

2. " John makes pens." 

Makes is the verb, and has the s modification — 
but John, the nominative, has no s modification ! 
To make the sentence conform to Mr. Brown's 
doctrine, it should read thus : 

Johns makes pens .' 

"John makes pens." 

In this case the very reverse of Mr. Brown's 
doctrine is the truth : the verb does not agree in 
modification with the nominative ; but it does 
agree in modification with the object, makes 
pens .' .' 

In due time we shall examine the rule which 
we have taken from page ninety-four. And, 
unless we are altogether mistaken, we shall 
demonstrate that " a verb ' must' not agree with 
its nominative in number and person." — (Book II. 
p. 262.) 



APPEAL. 



DIVISION OF VERBS INTO TRANSITIVE, AND 
INTRANSITIVE. 

Why not use transitive, and intransitive, 
inquires an old school grammarian ? 

Because these words are not applicable. These 
words are employed in the old grammars : but 
they do not answer the purpose for which they are 
ihere used better than any other two words would. 
In subdividing the great verb family, the cause of 
truth, and the good of both teacher and pupil 
would be subserved as well by the use of rock, and 
river, as by the use of transitive and intransitive. 
True, rock, and river mean nothing which pertains 
to verbs. But do transitive and intransitive mean 
any thing which belongs to verbs ? The child is 
taught to call resembles a transitive verb. 
But why not teach the child to denominate 
resembles a river verb ! True there is nothing 
about resembles which is like a river. Nor is 
there any thing about this verb which is like the 
trae meaning of transitive. The old grammars 
tell us that a transitive verb expresses an action 
which passes from its agent, and terminates on an 
object. But, as resembles does not express any 
action at all, how can it be a transitive verb ? In 
the following instance, strikes is called an intransi- 
tive verb : 

John strikes on the ground. 

Does not this verb express an action which 
passes from John, and terminates on the ground? 

In the following, strikes is actually called a 
transitive verb : 

James strikes the ground. 

Now, does not the action of John, as well as that 
of James, terminate upon the ground? 

The following merits attention quite as much 
as either of the preceding : 

The ground was struck by John. 

Although we are told in the old grammars, that 
a transitive verb is one which expresses an action 
that passes from an agent, and terminates on an 
object, yet struck, is not called ^transitive verb ? 

Mr. John S. Hart, has compiled an English 
grammar. Under page 62, he says : 

' r A transitive verb is one which requires an 
objective case after it; as, James writes a 
letter." 

If this sentence has any bearing upon the sub- 
ject under consideration, it has something which 
J am unable to understand. Mr. Hart says, that 
a transitive verb is one which requires an objec- 
tive case after it. In the following sentence, see 
is transitive — yet no objective case can be placed 
after it : 

Whom did you see ? 
Here, whom, the objective case, is actually put 
before did, the auxiliary verb ! 



To construct this sentence according to Mr. 
Hart, it would read as follows : 

Did you see whom ? 
There is an objection to Mr. Hart's definition 
of a transitive verb, that springs out of the difficulty 
with which the child meets in deciding what the 
objective case is. Mr. Hart informs the pupil that 
"A transitive verb is one which rcquries an objec- 
tive case after it." But the pupil turns to Mr. 
Hart with this problem : 

"What is the objective case ?" 
Can the learned Murray mender solve the child's 

problem ? No ! Under page 47, Mr. Hart informs 

the child, that the nominative, and objective cases 

are alike. 

"167. The nominative, and objective are alike." 

Page 47. 

Under page 45, Mr. Hart defines these two 

cases : 

1. "The nominative case is that in which 
something is asserted of the noun." 

2. " The objective case is that in which the noun 
is the object of some verb or preposition." 

Under page 46, Mr. Hart resumes the subject 
of the cases; and here he says that 

" It is of the greatest importance that the pupil 
should learn as early as possible to distinguish 
between the nominative, and objective cases. The 
possessive may be recognised at once by its form. 
But to distinguish readily the other two, is one of 
the greatest stumbling blocks to beginners .'" 

Yet this compiler attempts to define a transitive 
verb upon the distinctive fact that it requires the 
objective case after it ! 

But from what is the child to derive his knowl- 
edge of the three cases ? Mr. Hart has furnished 
him with the following propositions which are 
devoid of all meaning, all sense, and of all gram- 
matical propriety. 

1. " The nominative case is that in which some, 
thing is asserted of the noun." 

2. " The possessive case is that in which some- 
thing belongs to the noun. " 

3. " The objective case is that in which the noun 
is the object of some verb, or preposition." 

The following is Mr. Hart's definition of an in. 
transitive verb : 

u An intransitive verb is one which does not 
require an objective case after it ; as, John sleeps.' 7 

One would presume from the fact that Mr. Hart 
is " member of the American Philosophical So- 
ciety," that he would not attempt to define a thing 
by stating what it does not do! It seems to me, 
though I am not " member of" any Philosophical 
Society, that in defining an intransitive verb, it 
would not be at all inconsistent with philosophy § 
to say what it requires. But strange as it may 
appear to philosophers in general, here is a gram- 
marian who is not only "Principal of the Phila- 
delphia High School" but " Member of the Ameri- 



76 



APPEAL. 



can Philosophical Society," who attempts to 
define an intransitive verb by specifying, not what 
it does require, but what it does not require ! 

" An intransitive verb is one which does require 
an objective case after it !" 

If we wish to define a hatter do we tell what he 
does not make, or what he does make? Mr. 
Hart's way of defining a hatter seems to be this : 
A hatter is one who does not make boots ! 

From this, Mr. Hart seems to conclude that it 
follows that every person who does not make boots, 
is a hatter ! 

Almost every person would instinctively define 
a hatter as follows : 

A hatter is one who makes hats. 

And surely there is no grammarian who is 
" member of" a philosophical society, that would 
not define any thing whatever upon the same 
affirmative principles on which the mere child 
would define a hatter ! 

But, if an intransitive verb is one which does 
not require an objective case, why is not every 
passive verb intransitive ? 

1. The world was created by God. 

2. The child has been taught. 

3. The letter had been written. 

Neither was created, has been taught, nor had 
been written, requires an objective case ; still Mr. 
Hart himself calls these verbs not intransitive, 
but passive ! 

When L. Murray constructed his English gram- 
mar, the basis on which verbs were subdivided, 
was the transitive character of the action denoted 
by the verb. And even now, among old school 
grammarians in general, this character of the 
action expressed by the verb, is the basis of verbs 
into transitive, and intransitive. But this charac- 
ter of the action is now considered by many as 
the mere figment of the mind. Among these may 
be reckoned Mr. Hart who has reckoned this fiction 
for that on which he has attempted to subdivide 
verbs into transitive, and intransitive. Mr. Hart 
not only saw that every passive verb which ex- 
presses action, signifies a transitive action ; and, 
that hence every such verb is as much transitive 
as any verbs which are actually called transitive, 
but he saw also that thousands of verbs, which are 
denominated transitive, express no action what- 
ever. For instance : — 

1. John enjoys good health. 

2. Stephen resembles his mother. 

3. James has a new book. 

4. The timber wants strength and solidity. 
Enjoys, resembles, has, and wants are transitive. 

Yet not one of the four verbs signifies an action 
of any description ! 

Mr. Hart has not been willing to call these 
verbs transitive upon the old figment principle ; 
hence he denominates them transitive upon a 
new figment principle. 



Now to arrest the progress of fiction in the sub- 
division of verbs, I have taken great pains to place 
this subdivision upon a reality which even the 
mere child can readily understand. And to ex- 
press the distinctive character which verbs derive 
from this reality on which they are subdivided, I 
employ, 

Mono, Duo, Uni, Ambi. 

The several remarks in the Grammar, which fall 
under the general head of Observations, and 
which are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 
&c, are facts in the science of English grammar, 
of which every old school grammarian is perfectly 
ignorant. Had Mr. Murray know 7 n these facts 
when he compiled his grammar, he never would 
have subdivided verbs into active, passive, and 
neuter. And had his pretended simplifiers known 
these facts, they would not have subdivided verbs 
into transitive and intransitive. 

The old subdivision of verbs, numerous as it is, 
does not make any difference between a neuter 
verb which has a sense relation with the nomina- 
tive case, and one which has a sense relation with 
an objective case : — 

1. He run. 

2. James told me to run. 

In both, run is a neuter verb. But, in the first, 
this neuter verb is connected with he, the nomi- 
native : in the second, however, this neuter verb 
is connected with me, the objective case ! To 
supply this deficiency in the old grammars, I use 
uni, and ambi. 

Should an old school grammarian, after reading 
what is here said, upon the use of transitive, and 
intransitive, decide in favor of these words, I 
should exclaim, 
"Let Ephraim alone — he is joined to his idols." 

SUBDIVISION OF VERBS. 

Verbs are subdivided upon the basis of the 
number of cordictive, and uncordictive nouns, and 
pronouns with which they have a sense connec- 
tion, into 

Mono, Duo, Uni, Ambi. 

[Monos, one ; Duo, two. Uni, one ; Ambi, two.] 

1. MONO VERBS. 

A mono verb is one which has a sense relation 
with one cordictive noun, or with one cordictive 
pronoun only ; as, 

1. Snow falls. 

2. John walks. 

3. Nathaniel must be punished. 

4. He laughs. 

5. She smiles. 

2. DUO VERBS. 

A duo verb is one which has a sense relation 



APPEAL. 



77 



with one cordictive, and with one uncordictive 
noun, or pronoun only ; as 

1. Jane enjoys good health. 

2. Sarah resembles him. 

3. Joseph has a new book. 

3. UNI VERBS. 

A uni verb is one which has a sense relation 
with one uncordictive noun, or pronoun only ; as t 
I saw the birds fly ; James desired me to return. 
[Fly, return. [ 

4. AMBI VERBS. 

An ambi verb is one which has a sense relation 
with two uncordictive nouns, or pronouns only ; 
as, John wished me to write the letters. [ Write.] 

Note. — The uni and the ambi verbs are found 
in the demimono only. 

OBSERVATIONS. 

1. Verbs which are always inceptive, are always 
mono. [Page 137.] 

2. Every inceptive, as well as every medial verb, 
is mono ; as, John must have written. 

3. The final verb, and the solo verb are the only 
ones which can be duo. 

4. If the mono has but one noun, or pronoun, 
all the verbs are mono : as, James will have been 
punished. 

5. If the mono has two nouns, two pronouns, or 
one noun, and one pronoun, the final, or the solo 
verb which may be in it, is duo ; as, Cato must 
have killed himself; Moses served Jethro ; they 
hurt us. 

6. There may be a demimono which has neither 
a noun nor a pronoun ; as, The horse was inclined 
(to run.) 

7. If there is neither a noun, nor a pronoun in 
the demimono, and the verb in the demimono has 
a sense relation with the cordictive noun, or pro- 
noun of the ne-demimono, it is a mono verb ; as, 
[The horse was inclined] (to run.) 

8. If the verb in the demimono has a sense 
relation with the cordictive noun, or pronoun of 
the ne-demimono, it is a duo verb ; [I am] (to 
write a letter.) 

9. No demimono can have more than one noun ; 
nor can any demimono have more than one 
pronoun. 

10. No demimono can have more than three 
verbs. [To have been punished.] 

11. The word have as an inceptive verb in the 
demimono, has no sense relation with any noun, or 
pronoun ; as, they were to have written letters. 

12. Have, as an inceptive verb in the ne-demi- 
mono, has a sense relation with the cordictive 
noun, or pronoun ; as, they have written their 
copies. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

1. PRINCIPAL VERB. 2. AUXILIARY VERB. 

1. What is a principal verb? This question 
is not answered in the old theory of English 
Grammar. 

2. What is an auxiliary verb? To this inter- 
rogation, Murray, replies as follows — 

" Auxiliary or helping verbs, are those by the 
help of which the English verbs are principally 
conjugated." 

We presume that our auxiliary verbs are Latin, 
or Greek, and that our principal verbs are 
English ! ! 

Peter Bullions says — 

" The auxiliary, or helping verbs, by the help 
of which verbs are principally inflected, are the 
following — Do, did, have, had, h fyc. 

It seems by this paragraph that auxiliary verbs 
are not verbs at all ! !" " The auxiliary, or helping 
verbs, by the help of which verbs are principally 
inflected ! !" 

Caleb Farnum says — 

"Auxiliary verbs are several short verbs used 
in forming the moods, tenses, &c, of other 
verbs." 

Must is one of these short verbs. But hit is 
not — hit is a long verb ! ! ! 

This is a very pretty division of verbs — 

1. Short verbs, and 

2. Long verbs ! ! 

Goold Brown says that — 

"An auxiliary verb is a short verb prefixed 
to one of the principal parts of another verb, to 
express some particular mode and time of the 
being, action or passion." 

In some instances have is an auxiliary — in 
others, a principal. 

1. " They have returned." 

Here have is so short that it is a mere auxil- 
iary ! ! 

2. " They have a book." 

Here have is so long that it is a principal 
verb ! ! 

Short verbs, and Long verbs ! 

Well — it is a distinction which can be measured 
— it can be ascertained with great precision ! ! ! 

Under page 45, Goold Brown recognizes princi- 
pal verbs : 

11 Do, be, and have, belong also to principal 
verbs." 

But what is a principal verb ? The only answer 
to this question, which can be found in the old 
theory, is that a principal verb is a long verb ! 
This answer is a fair deduction from the fact 
that an auxiliary verb is denominated " a short 
verb ! !" 



78 



APPEAL. 



SHORT VERBS. 

Do, have, shall, will, may, can, am, must, 

Did, had, should, would, might, could, was. 

Am, do, and have, are also principal verbs. — 
Bullions. 

Both the name, and the function of these verbs, 
can be readily understood. 

" Short" and " helping" are easy of compre- 
hension. 

But there is one thing which we must say we 
do not comprehend : we can not see why the long, 
the principal, verbs are not auxiliary ! If John, 
and James accomplish an object by their joint 
exertion, is not John an auxiliary to James ? 
Certainly. If John is an auxiliary to James, is 
not James an auxiliary to John ? 

Are not both, then auxiliary actors ! ! ? If the 
auxiliary verb helps the principal, the principal 
must do some part of the work. Hence the 
principal, and the auxiliary accomplish the work 
by their joint action. Both, then, are auxiliary 
verbs ! j For instance, 

" I have written a book." 

'■'■Have' 1 '' is an auxiliary, a helping, verb, because 
it aids " written" in forming the imperfect tense. 
Does have form this tense without any aid from 
" written ?" If so, have is a principal — not an 
auxiliary ! 1 On the contrary, if have, and written 
form this tense conjunctively, by their joint, their 
united efforts, both are auxiliary verbs ! ! ! 

Let us see — 

1. I have written a book. 

2. I have a book. 

Have without written is present. But when have 
is accompanied by written, the sentence has the 
imperfect tense ! ! Does not written, then, help 
have in the formation of the tense ? Is not writ- 
ten, then, an auxiliary verb ! ? O ! says Mr. 
Goold Brown, written is not short enough for an 
auxiliary — have is the shorter verb of the two— 
hence have is the auxiliary ! ! ! 

It is a curious fact that in almost every instance, 
the true doctrine is the very reverse of that taught 
by the old theory. The verb which is called 
auxiliary, is really the principal, the main, verb. 
It is the auxiliary verb alone, which aids the 
cordictive noun in forming the cordiction, the 
sentence character. 

" John can write." 

Here can, not write, aids the cordictive noun, 
John, in forming, in producing this affirmation. 

Write has the cordictive power — but this power 
is not exerted here. In the following the cor- 
dictive power of write is exerted! 

John writes. 

What, then, is the principal verb ? 

The principal verb is that which aids the 
cordictive in producing the cordiction — in forming 
the sentence character. 



We should be glad to discuss the subject of the 
divisions of verbs into regular, and irregular, 
neuter and passive. But we have not space. We 
say, however, that these divisions belong to the 
same family of errors, and contradictions, which 
we have so abundantly exposed. They have 
nothing to recommend them to our mercy, — nor 
have they any thing to deter us from treating 
them in the same way in which we have dealt 
with the numerous other members of the frater- 
nity to which they belong. 

THE SUBSTITUTE. 
SUBDIVISION OF VERBS. 

Verbs are subdivided upon the basis of their 
relative position in a verb series, and upon their 
capacity to be used without another verb, into 

1. Inceptive, 

2. Final, 

3. Medial, and 

4. Solo. 

1. An Inceptive verb is the first word in the verb 
series ; as, 

Can be punished : Might have been punished. 

2. A Final verb is the last word in the verb 
series ; as, 

Can be punished; Was punished ; Might have 
been punished. 

3. A medial verb is one which comes some- 
where between the Inceptive, and the Final verb ; 
as, 

Can be punished ; Might have been punished. 

4. A Solo verb is one which is used alone, with- 
out another verb ; as, 

John punished them ; Be thou good ; I have a 
book. 

1. Verbs which are always inceptive. 
May Might Shall 



Can 
Must 



Could 
Would 



Should 
Ought. 



2. Verbs which may be Inceptive, Medial, Final, 
or Solo, as occasion requires. 

Be. Have. 



ILLUSTRATION. 

1. Joseph, be writing your copy. [Inceptive.] 

2. Jane will soon be writing. [Medial.] 

3. Sarah must be good. [Final.] 

4. Sarah, be thou diligent. [Solo.] 

Have. 

1. I have written. [Inceptive.] 

2. John will have written. [Medial.] 

3. I must have a book. [Final.] 

4. I have a book. [Solo.] 



APPEAL. 



79 



We not un frequently find the word being used 
as a medial verb. For instance — " The house is 
being built;" " The boy is being taught." 

This use of being is shamefully bad ; indeed, it 
is so despicable, that I can hardly consent to 
comment upon it. That being is neither medial 
nor final, must be clear to all who have made the 
construction of the verb series a subject of thought. 
[Book II.] 



CHAPTER XV. 

OF THE PARTICIPLE. 

The Participle is a certain form of the verb, 
and derives its name from its participating, not 
only of the properties of a verb, but also of those 
of an adjective ; as, " I a.m desirous of knowing 
him ;" " admired and applauded, he became vain ;" 
" Having finished his work, he submitted it," &c. 

MURRAY. 

"And derives its name froin its participating, 
not only of the properties of a verb, but also of those 
of an adjective," has nothing to do with the defi- 
nition — this clause is the work of supererogation. 
If the definition is made out at all, it is completed 
in the first branch of the sentence. 

" The participle is a certain form of the verb." 
What form is it to which allusion is here made • 
No one would receive the following as a defi- 
nition of a horse — 

"A horse is a certain hind of an animal .'" 
Yet, what Mr. Murray's definition of the parti- 
ciple, is to this part of speech, this definition of a 
horse, is to this animal. And were we to add, 
and he is owned by farmers, mechanics, merchants, 
&c, we could help the first attempt as much as 
Mr. Murray has his definition by the clause, " and 
derives its name,'''' Sfc. 

" The participle is a certain form of the verb ;" 
as, " I am desirous of knowing him, Admired and 
applauded, he became vain ;" " Having finished 
his work, he presented it for examination." 

In the definition, the student is informed that a 
participle is one certain form — Yet in the illus- 
tration, he is presented with no fewer than 
three ! 

1. Knowing. 

2. Applauded. 

3. Having finished. 

A participle is a form of a verb — But is it pos- 
sible that the mere form of one part of speech is 
another part of speech ! ? 

Why, if a participle is defined to be a/orw of a 
verb, it follows that a verb may be defined to be 
a/orm of a participle. 



A verb, is as well defined by saying — 
A verb is a certain form of a participle, as a 
participle is by saying — 

"A participle is a certain form of a verb." 
The student is told that a participle is a certain 
form of a verb, participating the nature of a verb, 
and an adjective. ' He is also told that from this 
circumstance it derives its name. Would it not, 
then, be much better to call this part of speech, a 
verbal adjective ? We do not know what has 
given rise to the use of the term, "participle," in 
the old theory of English Grammar. But this we 
do know, that if the reason assigned by Mr. Mur. 
ray, and others, is the true one, it has been intro- 
duced without any good reason! A participle 
does not partake of the nature of an adjective to 
any greater degree than does a verb in its primi- 
tive state ! 

1. "James is writing letters which are to be 
carried to Boston, by his brother, Charles." 

2. "John is reading books, written by his 
father." 

3. " They are loved, and applauded by their 
friends." 

The words in italic characters are participles — 
but do they partake of the nature of adjectives ? 
Can any word be more singly devoted to the ex- 
pression of action, than is the word, writing — 
" James is writing letters which are to be carried 
to Boston, by his brother, Charles." 

But it is pretended that " writing" points out 
the attitude, or condition of the writer-^-hence 
cometh the adjective character ! Let us, then, 
say, 

" James wrote letters last evening to his father." 

Now, does not "wrote" show the same condi- 
tion, posture," or attitude which " writing" points 
out? Is his manner of sitting, or standing, as 
presented by "writing" different from that pre- 
sented by wrote 1 ? Why, then, is not wrote a 
participle as much as writing ! ? But neither 
" writing," nor " wrote" points out any condition 
whatever — the condition of the person is a matter 
of inference that the mind makes from the nature 
of the very action which is done. These words 
express the action, and nothing more. 

"James is, writing letters, which are to be 
carried to Boston, by his brother, Charles." 

Nor does the word, carried, denote any thing 
which should entitle it to be called a verbal adjec- 
tive. It does not partake of an adjective in the 
slightest degree — the word is used to express the 
action of Charles — it expresses that merely. 

The expression a little varied — 

Charles " carries" letters to Boston, for his bro- 
ther James. 

Does " carries" denote any thing different here 
from that which it signifies in the other construc- 
tion ! ? Why, then, is not this word a participle 
in both instances ? 

If there was the least particle of plausible matter 



80 



APPEAL. 



which we could find to oppose, we might have 
some inducements to pursue this subject — but as 
there is not even one point in the whole subject 
which appears to favor the position of the old 
school grammarians, we shall close this chapter 
as soon as possible. Before we do this, however, 
we shall submit a few remarks upon some particu- 
lar examples of illustration, chosen by the latest 
menders of Mr. Murray. 

" I have a letter written." Goold Brown. 

Here it is said, that written partakes of the 
nature of an adjective, inasmuch as it points out 
the condition, or state of the letter. " Written" 
however, used as an adjective, conveys an idea 
very different from that denoted by the participle 
above — 

1. " I have a letter written," 

2. " I have a written letter !" 

In the first, " written" denotes that the letter is 
finished — in the second, it denotes the kind of 
letter — a written letter, not a printed one. 

In the expression, " a written letter," this word 
is purely an adjective — in the first it is a par- 
ticiple. — In the first, the word expresses the action 
of writing with an allusion to the completion of 
tbe act — I have a letter already written. That is, 
the act is already finished. If, written was used 
in contrast with "unwritten" we should be bound 
to admit its adjective character — for it would then 
be an adjective, and nothing else ; as, I have a 
written letter — but not an unwritten one ! ! 

Suppose the sentence had been continued by 
Mr. Goold Brown. 

" I have a letter written by James Johnson." 

" Written" here denotes the action of Mr. John- 
son, and is used for that purpose, and for no other 
— yet this same word is a participle ! Is it not, 
then, as clear as perspicuity itself, that the defi- 
nition of a participle cannot be founded upon its 
similarity to other parts of speech, and that it can- 
not rest even upon its own meaning since this 
varies with every change of construction. The 
adjective is a word so various in its imports that 
Mr. Murray could not find a definition which 
could reach its true character — yet he undertakes 
to place a definition of a participle upon the cha- 
racter of an adjective, a part of speech whose 
nature he has been unable to define. "A verb 
signifies being, action, or suffering;" as, James 
resembles me, he ought to be in Boston on Mon- 
day next, John merits praise ! ! 

That a participle is not an adjective in charac- 
ter, will appear to all who consider that all par- 
ticiples may be qualified by adverbs of time, and 
manner; as, 

I have a letter now written. 

The letter has been written accurately. 

In writing the letter well, you will please your 
teacher ! 

All participles express the same ideas which 
the verbs denote — upon this principle, then, the}' 



are not like adjectives ? We ask, therefore, upon 
what ground it can be pretended that a participle 
is like an adjective ? Has a participle any degree 
of comparison? None. 

It is not true, then, that a participle partakes 
of the nature of an adjective. Nor does a partici- 
ple merely participate of the nature of a verb. A 
participle is a verb. It is true, that participles 
may be so applied that they lose their verb charac- 
ter, and take that of an Adjective, or that of a 
Noun ; as written letters, flying clouds, running 
water. 

The words which are participles in other in- 
stances, are here pure adjectives. The word, 
silver, is a noun generally, yet it may be so used 
as to become an adjective ; as, silver dollars. 

Goold Brown : 

A participle is a word derived from a verb, par- 
ticipating the properties of a verb and an adjec- 
tive ; and is generally formed by adding ing, d, or 
ed, to the verb; as, Rule, ruling, ruled. — Goold 
Brown. 

" And is generally formed by adding, ing, d, 
Or ed, to the verb," is an important part of the 
definition ! 

Under the same page the compiler observes that, 

" Participles, like verbs, express being, action, or 
passion." 

Why, then, are not participles verbs ? Does 
not Mr. Brown say that if a word signifies being, 
action, or passion, it is a verb ! ? Why, then, is 
not a participle a verb ! ? 

The old theory generally divides participles 
into, 

1. Present, 

2. Imperfect, 

3. Compound perfect. 

Why not have present verbs ? If a participle 
is called Present because it expresses present time, 
should not a verb which expresses present time be 
denominated a Present verb ! ? 

But the truth is that the Present participle does 
not express any time whatever. The time is 
always expressed by an inceptive verb, or by some 
mono implied, or expressed ; as, 

1. I am writing. 

2. I was writing. 

3. I have been writing. 

4. I will be writing. 

The different times are here expressed by am, 
was, have, been, and will. 

1. "Washington being a prudent man, they 
gave heed to his advice." 

Here gave expresses the time of the mono, 
" Washington being." 

" Johnson being learned in the law, his clients 
confide in his opinions." 

Here confide is the true index to the time of the 
mono, " Johnson being learned." 

Was confide carried to confided, the time of the 



APPEAL. 



81 



mono, 
as, 



Johnson heing learned" would be past 



( u Johnson being learned) in the law, his clients 
confided in his opinions. 

The first is equal to — 

As Johnson is learned, &c. 

The second, to — 

As Johnson was learned, &c. 

What is usually denominated the present parti- 
ciple by the old grammarians, is called an Imper- 
fect participle by Goold Brown. 

The imperfect participle is always formed by 
adding ing to the verb ; and implies a continuation 
of the being, action, or passion; as, loving, seeing, 
being. — Goold Brown. 

Let us see the way in which this definition 
works in practice. 

1. "The note being paid, the suit was with- 
drawn." 

Here being is an imperfect participle, and is 
formed from be by affixing ing. But does being 
imply a continuation of the act of paying the 
note ! ? What, is the debtor to continue to pay a 
demand after he has already paid it ! ! ! ? This is 
strange, and hard. 

2. " The man being killed by his fellow traveller, 
his horse was stolen." 

What ! does being imply that the man is still to 
be killed by his fellow traveller !? Cruel fate 1 

3. " John being a thief, was imprisoned for the 
safety of the community." 

What ! is there no reform ? Is it here meant 
that John is to continue to steal ! ? 

4. Goold Brown having finished his labors, 
they are now public property." 

But, according to the author's position in rela- 
tion to the import of having, his labors are to be 
continued ! ! ! ! 

5. " John will be writing a letter next week." 
Is there any intimation here that John will 

continue in the act of writing letters ! ! ? 

6. " James will be laughing within an hour." 
What ! is it here intimated that James will 

continue to laugh ! ! ? Nothing like it. 

*• John was dying last week." 

Does dying imply that John is to continue to 
die ! 1 ? 

But what a singular choice our author has made 
in his technical to express the idea of continuation ! 
" Imperfect.' 1 '' Does the word, imperfect, import 
continuation ! i ? Would not continuative answer 
Mr. Goold Brown's purpose much better than 
imperfect ? 

1. " An imperfect participle." 

2. A continuative participle. 

But we presume that Mr. B. has not labored to 
express the character of the participle, but that of 
the thing denoted by the participle. 

The action, being, or passion, says he is not 



completed — hence it is imperfect. And as the 
action, Icing, or passion is imperfect, the word 
which denotes it must be called imperfect. But 
would it not be much better for the grammarian 
to attend to the character of the words than to 
give his time to that of things ? 

Besides, if the participle is called imperfect 
because it expresses an action which is imperfect, 
should not the verb which expresses an imperfect 
action, be denominated an imperfect verb ! ? 

1. That stream of water runs through Harris- 
burg. 

2. That stream of water is running through 
Harrisburg. 

Which form of expression indicates the longer 
continuation of the action of running ! ! ? If, then, 
running is denominated an imperfect participle 
because the action of which it is the name, is not 
finished, has not ceased, — should not " runs" be 
styled an imperfect verb ! ? 

But is not the practice of applying to words the 
names which expresses the character of the things 
denoted, the perfection of folly ? What, is a word 
imperfect because it denotes an imperfect thing [ I ? 
By parity of reasoning, a word is round because 
it denotes a round thing ! By parity of reasoning, 
a word is square because it signifies a square 
thing. By parity of reasoning, a word is iron 
because it expresses an iron thing. By parity of 
reasoning, a noun is sweet, or sour, red or black, 
according to the character of the thing of which 
it is significant! Thus circle is a round noun I ! 
Crow, as well as negro, is a black noun ! ! 

Why is negro a black noun ! Because the being 
denoted by the word, is black ! Why is running 
an imperfect participle ? Because the action 
denoted by the word is imperfect ! ! I 

Is not this the very principle upon which the 
old theory authors, and old theory menders 
proceed ? In compliance with this philosophy, 
they make imperfect participles : as, The stream 
is running. 

In compliance with this principle, they make 
perfect participles; as, I have a letter written by 
John. 

Do they not call written a perfect participle, 
because it signifies a perfect action, a perfectly 
finished action ! ? 

And on the same principle, must they not call 
grapes a sour noun, and sugar, a sweet noun, and 
water a liquid noun, and ice a solid, cold, frozen 
noun ! ! ? 

The perfect participle implies the completion, 
the perfection, of the being, action or passion." — 
Goold Brown. 

compound participle. 

The nature of the compound participle is obvi- 
ous : its characteristic is a mixture of perfection, 



82 



APPEAL. 



and imperfection, in the same action ! This is too 
clear to require illustration. Hence the old school 
grammarians content themselves by showing how 
it is formed. This, however, was unnecessary. 
The component parts of the compound participle, 
are clearly indicated by the very word, compound. 
The commingling of the perfect, and imperfect, 
participle, forms the compound participle ! But, 
hold, here is an instance from Goold Brown 
himself: 

" He ' having loved? his mother, lamented her 
death." 

Loved indicates that the action is perfected, 
finished — but having implies the continuation, the 
imperfection — hence the complex, the compound, 
character ! ! ! 

Is not the doctrine of transubstantiation the 
principle on which the old school grammarians 
have built much of their theory ? See it clearly 
illustrated in a work recently compiled by John 
Frost. This Murray mender has diminutive 
nouns. That is, nouns which represent small 
things. Mouse would be a diminutive noun. But 
why do not these men carry their principle through : 
as they call mouse a diminutive noun, why do 
they not call elephant a big noun '. ! If the char- 
acter of the thing is transfused into the words 
which denote the things, why do not the old school 
grammar makers, and menders, adhere to the 
principle throughout ? Why do they not divide 
nouns into long-eared nouns ; as, rabbit — and, into 
short-eared nouns ; as cat ! ! ? In short, why 
do not these distinguished scholars act upon their 
theory fully : are they apprehensive that they 
would be compelled to have short-tailed nouns, 
long-tailed nouns, &c, &c, &c. ! ? 

THE SUBSTITUTE. 

It is true, as Mr. Murray says, that the participle 
is a particular form of the verb. And, had he 
informed the child what particular character dis- 
tinguishes this form, his definition would be much 
more satisfactory. The particular form of the 
verb, which the old school grammarians call a 
participle, is the tenseless form of it ; as, writing - , 
written. Having, Being, Been, fyc. 

THE TENSELESS FORM OF VERBS. 

The forms of verbs are naturally divided into 

1. Tense forms, and 

2. Tenseless forms. 

1. TENSE FORM. 

The tense form of a verb is the form which 
indicates the exertion of one of the six time-express- 
ing powers of the verb ; as Walk, walks, walketh, 
walked; Go, went; Be, was, art, wast; Write, 
wrote. 



TENSELESS FORM. 

The tenseless form of a verb is a form which 
indicates the non-exertion of the six time-expressing 
powers of the verb; as, walking-, going, gone, 
been, seeing, writing, written. 

TENSELESS FORMS OF VERBS. 

writing- written 



being 



loving 

been 

putting 



HOW FORMED. 



The tenseless forms of verbs are produced by 
incorporating o, en, ne, n, u, or ing, either with 
the radical state, or with the passed tense form of 
the verb ; as, 

1. Written. 

2. Gone. 

3. Flown. 

4. Begun. 

5. Going. 

division. 

The tenseless forms of verbs are divided into ' 

1. Be, and 

2. Be and Have. 

1. The tenseless Be form is the derivative, 
ing, 

2. The tenseless Be and Have forms are en, ne, 
n, u, and o. 

1. TENSELESS BE FORM. 

The tenseless Be form of a verb is the derivative, 
ing, and is incorporated with the final verb in the 
series where some form of be is employed as an 
inceptive, or as a medial verb : as, 

1. Jane will be coming. 

2. James is writing. 

3. Charles has been laughing - . 

4. Thou art reading. 

5. We are walking. 

2. TENSELESS be AND have FORM. 

The tenseless Be and Have form of a verb is the 
derivative deflection which is incorporated with a 
verb where some form of Be, or Have is employed 
as an inceptive, or as a medial verb ; as, 

1. I have written, [en.] 

2. Thou hast gone too far. [ne.] 

3. He had forsaken us. [n.] 



APPEAL. 



83 



CHAPTER XVI. 



OF AN ADVERB. 



An adverb is a part of speech, joined to a verb, 
a participle, an adjective, and sometimes to another 
adverb, to express some quality or circumstance 
respecting it. — Murray. 

Respecting- what ? respecting an adverb ? That 
is, an adverb is a part of speech joined to a verb, 
a participle and an adjective, to express some 
quality or circumstance respecting itself ! ! 

This must be the meaning ; or the pronoun, it, 
must represent verb, participle, adjective, and 
adverb ! 

To render this attempt at a definition of the 
adverb, correct English, the pronoun, it, should 
give place to them — 

An adverb is a part of speech, joined to a verb, 
a participle, an adjective, and sometimes to another 
adverb, to express some quality or circumstance 
respecting them. 

Nor is this error to be thrown upon the printer, 
or publisher. The error has been handed down 
through the successive editions of Mr. Murray's 
Grammar to the present time ! Nor is this the 
only error which this sentence throws upon its 
author. The word, sometimes, strongly implies 
that an adverb is always joined to a verb, always 
to a participle, and always to an adjective ! The 
adverb, however, is not always joined to a verb, 
because it is sometimes joined to a participle — for 
it is frequently joined to an adjective ! An adverb 
is not always joined to an adjective, since on many 
occasions, it is joined to another adverb ! If we 
drop the word " sometimes," and substitute them 
for it, the sentence will be English. 

An adverb is a part of speech joined to a verb, 
a participle, an adjective, and to another adverb, 
to express some quality, or circumstance respecting 

THEM. 

We object most strenuously to this sentence as 
a definition of an adverb ! It leaves the very 
principle adopted in all languages for grammati- 
cal solution. The principle to which we allude is 
a new name for a new relation — or a change of 
name for a change of relation. We have shown 
in the preceding chapter, that a new name has 
been introduced into the old theory of the English 
grammar, upon no stronger ground than a pre- 
tended participation. But in this definition of 
adverb, we find that the words which are con- 
stantly changing their relations, are compelled to 
receive the same name in each. If a verb, from a 
pretended participation of an adjective, deserves a 
new name, what do adverbs deserve which give up 
their whole adverbial character ? 

" They were spoken of." 



Here, of is an adverb. Why ? Because it 
relates, not to a noun, but to a verb ! 

" Of whom did lie speak ?" " Of Johnson." 
Here, of is a preposition. Why ? Because it 
relates to a noun. And wc contend that this is the 
true principle — and where this principle is rejected, 
grammar is disregarded. If this principle is the 
true one — then no word can be called an adverb, 
which does not qualify a verb. The words which 
are liable to a change of character from different 
relations, should be named, and analyzed with 
close reference to their various connections. Only 
the words which relate to verbs, should be called 
adverbs. The words which, from their peculiar 
readiness to throw off one character for another, 
should be named according to the relation which 
they are found to hold in the sentence under con- 
sideration. 

" He writes very well.'' 

In this instance, very is an ad-verb, added to the 
adverb, well!! Well is an adverb, added to 
writes. 

" James is much too dull to make a scholar." 
Much, is an ad-ad-adjective, added to too. 
too, is an ad-adjective, added to dull, 
dull, is an adjective, added to James. 
"Jane writes very much too fast.'''' 
Very, is an ad-ad-ad-adverb, added to much '. 
much, is an ad-ad-adverb, added to too ! 
too, is an ad-adverb, added to fast ! 
fast, is an adverb, added to writes. 
Why is fast called an adverb ? because it is 
added to a verb. Very well. 

Why should too be called an ad-adverb ? because 
it is added to an adverb ! 

Why should much be called an ad-ad-adverb ? 
because it is added to an ad-verb ! 

Why should very be called an ad-ad-ad-adverb ? 
because it is added to an ad-ad-adverb ! ! 

The analyzing of the words under the title of 
adverbs, which do not refer to verbs, is against the 
fair, and natural, suggestion of the very name, 
adverb. Adverb — what does the word import? 
Surely something added — added to what? Of 
course to nothing but a verb. What, then, is the 
character of the course adopted by grammarians 
in reference to this denomination of words ? It is 
directly opposed to the course pursued by them 
in reference to all the other denominations of 
words, and to the true character of the idea 
which the name of this denomination of words, 
conveys. This course has confused the whole 
theory, and practice of the student, upon the 
adverb. Why, then, should it be continued? 
Why not relieve the student of his burden by the 
introduction of that principle which is recognised 
in every other part of our language? Why 
should the teachers of our youth be compelled any 
longer to tamper with, tender years ? Let this 
definition be abrogated, and a new one introduced 
— one suited to the genius of the language, and 



84 



APPEAL. 



the capacity of the child, to the name of this 
denomination of words, and the practice of ana- 
lyzing every other. 

THE SUBSTITUTE. 
THE ADVERB DENOMINATION, 

Is a large class of uncordictive branch words, 
appropriated to verbs to express something which 
has a branch dependence upon whatever verbs 
denote, whether with, or without restriction ; as, 

1. John certainly pronounced the words. [ With- 
out restriction.] 

2. John certainly pronounced the words with 
propriety. [With restriction.] 

3. John pronounced the words properly. [With- 
out restriction.] 

4. Henry was not hurt. [Without restriction.] 

5. Henry was not hurt by a fall. [ With restric- 
tion.] 

Here, not does not deny the general act, but the 
restricted one — was not hurt by a fall. 

G. James can not write with his pen. [ With 
restriction.] 

7. James can not write. [Without restriction.] 

8. It is written, Man shall not live. [ Without 
restriction.] 

9. It is written, Man shall not live by bread 
alone. [With restriction.] 

THE SUBADVERB DENOMINATION, 

Is a small class of uncordictive branch words 
appropriated to adverbs, or to superior subadverbs, 
to denote something which has a branch depend- 
ence upon what is expressed by adverbs, or supe- 
rior subadverbs ; as, 

1. Jacob wrote his copy very slowly, and quite 
exact. 

2. This boy writes much too fast. 

3. The young lady reads exceedingly well. 

THE SUBADJECTIVE DENOMINATION, 

Is a small class of uncordictive branch words, 
appropriated to adjectives, or superior subadjectives, 
to denote something which has a branch depend- 
ence on what is expressed by adjectives, or by 
superior subadjectives ; as, 

1. It is so cold that I must have a fire. 

2. There is a milk white bird. 

3. A blood red leaf. 

Cold weather. Cold is an adjective. 

Too cold weather. Too is a subadjective. 

Much too cold wea- Much, and too are 

ther. subadjectives. 

Very much too cold Very, much, and too, 

weather. are subadjectives. 

This boy's mother's This, boy's, and mo- 

iather's son. ther's, are subadjectives. 



CHAPTER XVII. 



OF THE PREPOSITION. 



Prepositions serve to connect words with one 
another, and to show the relation between them ; 
as, he went from London to York. — Murray. 

A preposition is a word used to show the rela- 
tion of different words to each other, and generally 
points to a following noun, or pronoun; as, in, 
with, to. — Comly. 

Prepositions serve to connect words with one 
another, and to show the relation between them. — 
Ingersoll. 

A Preposition has something remarkable — so 
also have the preceding definitions — hence in this 
particular they all resemble the preposition! ! 
Mr. Murray says that a "preposition serves to 
connect words with one another, and to show a 
relation between them." 

The first part of this definition makes a prepo- 
sition nothing but a conjunction 1 And the second 
part is without any kind of import whatever — First, 
the words are connected — Secondly, there is a 
relation shown between them. Now, let it be 
observed that the two words which are connected 
by a third never have any relation one with the 
other ! For example — An " apple and pie. 

Apple and pie, are the words connected — yet 
there is no relation between them ! If we drop, 
and, the words are no longer connected, hence 
there is a relation between them; as> an apple 
pie .' ! 

Every conjunction, and every preposition, de- 
stroys all relation between words. If one should 
say — 

John and James — or, John or James, he would 
not express a relation between these words — but 
he would destroy the very relation which would 
exist in the absence of and, and or ; as, John 
James — 

What James is this ? It is John James — not 
Charles James. 

Again. " John is with the teacher." 

Now, is, and teacher have no kind of relation 
whatever — for is being an intransitive, or neuter 
verb, can have nothing to do with the objective 
noun. This relation is destroyed by the preposi- 
tion, with. If you remove " with," there will come 
into being a close relation between is and teacher ; 
as, John is the teacher I ! 

Yes, so close does the removal of this preposition 
render the relation, that is is made to refer to 
teacher as its subject — and teacher is rendered the 
subject of is ! Where, then, can Mr. Murray 
find support for his definition ! ? 

" A preposition serves to connect words, and to 
show a relation between them." 

But, has not the very reverse been proved ? 
Yes — "A preposition, so far as it regards the 



APPEAL. 



85 



relation of words, destroys it ! The following is 
much superior to the one given by Murray, 
Comly, Ingersoll, Greenleaf, Waterman, and 
others"— 

" A preposition is a branch word which separates 
other word?, and destroys the relation between 
them ; as, John is icith the teacher ! ! !" 

Let us now see in what manner Mr. Murray 
has been mended. Let us hear Mr. Comly — 

" A preposition is a word used to show the 
relation of different words to each other, and gene- 
rally points to a following noun or pronoun ; as, 
in, with, to" 

Mr. Comly has not only not mended Mr. Mur- 
ray's definition, but he has not illustrated his own ! 
The clause — "and generally points to a following 
noun or pronoun," is the only part of Mr. Comly's 
definition, which can be understood even by illus- 
tration, and this he has failed, through the omission 
of examples, to render intelligible ! ! In what 
way is it shown that a preposition generally points 
to a following noun, or pronoun, — and in what 
way is this pointing itself explained ? Surely not 
by in, with, to ! One would certainly suppose that 
the author would have given some examples of 
this pointing, as he calls it — for instance ; in the 
city, with his brother, to the window. 

But all the exemplification which Mr. Comly 
gives, is found in this triplicate group of preposi- 
tions. But, why should this part receive an illus- 
tration ? Not because it has any thing which 
relates exclusively to prepositions — but in giving 
it an illustration, the author would have exhibited 
a little better qualification for the task which he 
had undertaken ! Does not an article point to a 
following noun ; as, " a man," " the fields." 

" A preposition is a word used to show the 
relation of different words to each other; as, in, 
with, to ! ."' 

Let us now examine this part of the author's 
definition ; and illustrate its powers of application — 

" Where is Charles ? He is in — in what ? Why 
— he is in himself." 

Now, if in shows any relation between any two 
words in this sentence, we must think that there 
is a relation which we cannot see, which we can- 
hot comprehend! Say, if you please, that in 
shows a relation between the words he, and him- 
self. This, however, cannot be — for surely there 
cannot exist any sort of grammatical relation be- 
tween the words he, and himself! There is a 
relation existing between the word he, and the 
word is. The relation between is, and he, is as 
close as that between the ear, and the head. Let 
us, then, examine " is" and " himself." Let us 
suppose that Mr. Comly is right in his definition 
of a preposition — 

" He is in himself." 

In, is a preposition showing a relation which 
exists between the words, is and himself. Is, is an 
intransitive, or neuter verb, and it can have no kind 



of grammatical relation with any word which is 
in the objective case, without producing bad 
English ; as, he is him. 

But the example, (he is in himself,) is perfectly 
good English — besides, the word, himself, is the 
object of the preposition, in ; hence it can haves 
no relation with any verb whatever. We ask, 
then, between what two words, the preposition, in, 
shows a relation ? Why cannot this relation bo 
found, and defined ? Because there is no relation 
between these words ! ! Perhaps it may be said 
that prepositions show a relation between them- 
selves, and the following nouns, and pronouns, to 
which they generally point'. It seems, then, 
that a preposition is a word used to show its rela- 
tion to another word ! That is, a preposition has 
no meaning, but is used merely to inform the 
reader concerning its own important self! But 
do not all other branch words show their own 
relations to their supers as much as the prepo- 
sitions ! ? Does not the article point to a 
following noun upon which it depends ; as, a 
book, the pupil. 

Do not adjectives point to nouns, and pronouns 
also ; as, " an honest man is the noblest work of 
God ;" he is good, and wise, and humble, and 
happy. 

But suppose that a preposition is the only word 
in our language which conveys the least allusion 
of its own relation with another word — yes, take 
this for the truth — yet the received definition of a 
preposition gains nothing from the concession — 
because the definition asserts that — 

"A preposition is a word used, not to point out 
its own relation but to show a relation existing 
between other words ! But so far as relation comes 
into this question, it is destroyed, not pointed out ; 
as, he is in himself- — he is himself!''* 

The omission of in produces a relation between 
is, and himself, which the use of in, completely 
destroys ! 

Again — "James is with that man." 

Here, the words, man, and is, have no kind of 
relation whatever — in the following, however, the 
verb, is, has a close relation with man — 

James is that man ! ' 

Further — " He sent to that man." 

Here, to, the very word which is said to create, 
and show the relation, acts as a preventive against 
all relation ! ! By omitting to, the verb, sent, has 
a close relation with the noun, man — 

He sent that man ! 

Here, the word, man, ^becomes the uncordictive 
noun of sent — whereas, in the first construction, 
this noun is the uncordictive noun of the prepo- 
sition, to; hence, it can have no kind of frame- 
work relation with sent, in the first ! 

Having applied Mr. Comly's definition of the 
preposition, by a use of his own words (to, and with) 
we will now hear Mr. Ingersoll upon the prepo- 
sition. This gentleman is a great talker — indeed 



86 



APPEAL. 



his book is entitled Conversations! That Mr. 
Ingersoll has mended Mr. Murray, there can be 
little doubt — but in what particular way, he him- 
self must state. The learned mender begins — 

" Tutor. — We commence this morning with the 
preposition, which is a part of speech very easily 
understood." 

" A preposition serves to connect words with one 
another, and to show the relation between them." 
Three cheers ! 

Let us now hear Mr. Kirhham. He has under- 
taken to mend, by coming forward in the very 
pleasing attitude of a lecturer. Mr. Kirhham 
turned Mr. Ingersoll's colloquial powers into a sort 
of clerical faculty, and appeared upon the great 
theatre of patch-work, not viva voce, but in the 
imperishable, and monumental mode of print! 
His prologue was a large sheet, called — 

" THE COMPENDIUM." 

This sheet, decorated as it was about the margin, 
had the desired effect. Americans could not behold 
the resplendent dapples of ink, which bedizened 
the whole border of this grammar-plain, without 
giving to him the praise of genius, and the reward 
of merit. His sheets were all purchased — and 
this liberal encouragement enabled him to publish 
Mr. IngersolVs Grammar ! ! Hence we find the 
very definition which Mr. Ingersoll gives of the 
preposition, adopted by Mr. Kirkham. It may, 
perhaps be asked who is this Mr. Kirkham ? He is 
Mr. Samuel Kirkham ! And who is Mr. Samuel 
Kirkham, pray ? He is the man who pilfered 
from the new system to form his own!! Who is 
he ? He is a scholar — he is the man who has 
overcome all the difficulties within the range of 
that science, which had exhausted a Murray's 
learning in vain, which had met the gigantic mind 
of a Johnson with success, played with the genius 
of a Webster with delight, baffled the acquire- 
ments of a Comly in literary glee, and buried the 
erudition of a Tooke beneath a huge pile of Anglo- 
Saxon verbiage. 

And by what mysterious means, has this Mr. 
Kirkham accomplished all this ? Why, by pub- 
lishing other men's ideas, ah, and language too ! 
Hence in Mr. Kirkham's book, we find the fol- 
lowing — 

"A preposition serves to connect words, and 
show the relation between them !" 

The following is the manner in which Mr. 
Kirkham proceeds to show how it is that prepo- 
sitions connect other words — 

Most of the prepositions are known by the list ; 
therefore you will please to look at your compend, 
and commit the whole catalogue. In the course 
of your parsing, you will find others not contained 
in the list ; but, when you become acquainted with 
the nature and character of this part of speech you 
will know it whenever you see it. 



The following sentence will show the use of 
prepositions : When corn is ripe, in October, it is 
gathered in the field by men, who go from hill to 
hill with baskets, into which they put the ears. 
Read this without the prepositions in, by, from, 
to, &c., and you will find a total want of connec- 
tion and meaning. 

Again : The man lives — the city. He writes — a 
pen. The child fell — the water. The apple 
dropped — the ground. You reside — the college. 

You perceive, in each of these sentences, either 
a total want of connection, or a connection that 
produces nonsense or falsehood. But if we fill up 
the vacancies in order by the prepositions in, with, 
into, to, opposite to, or over against, the sense and 
connection will be complete. 

You now understand the nature and use of 
prepositions as connectives. — Kirkham. 

The principle assumed by this mender of 
menders, is just as applicable to other parts of 
speech as to prepositions ! For instance, if we 
omit the verb, is, in the following example — 

" John is sick." 

The same want of frame-work connection, pro- 
duced by omitting the prepositions in the above 
instance is clear — - 

" John— sick !" 

Again — " John eats apples." 

" John — apples !" 

Hence it seems that Mr. Kirkham has not only 
explained the prepositions, but the verbs also ! ! 

One of the mender's examples is this — 

" When corn is ripe in October." 

Now by omitting in, he is able to explain the 
nature, and use of the preposition ! 

Thus — when corn is ripe — October. 

But as the omission of is will cause a greater 
want of connection, this verb, must be a prepo- 
sition. 

Let us see — " When corn — ripe in October !" 

A few more examples will put Mr. Kirkham's 
position in a clear point of view. 

1. John laughs — his sister. 

2. John — ! at his sister ! 

3. He was punished — teachers. 

4. He by teachers. 

5. They shot — a bird. 

6. They at a bird ! 

Now in the sixth example, the preposition is 
retained ; yet there is no kind of regular connection • 
But in the fifth, the verb is retained, and the prepo- 
sition omitted ; and the connection is regular, and 
the sense clear ! The question, then, is, which 
is the most powerful connective, a verb, or a prepo- 
sition ! ! 

Let us now see if Mr. Kirkham has not illus- 
trated the conjunction in his attempt to mend Mr. 
Murray on the preposition ! 

1. He is taller than John. 

2. He is taller John ! 

3. He is good, therefore happy. 



APPEAL. 



87 



4. He is good 



happy 



Let us next show that this learned mender of 
Murray, has illustrated the adjective in his exem. 
plification of the preposition ! 

1. "He is taller than John." 

2. He is than John. 

Let us next show that the articles are demon. 
strated to be prepositions, by Mr. Kirkham ! 

1. " He is the very person." 

2. He is very person ! ! 

" You now understand the nature and use of 
prepositions as connectives" says the mender ; 
41 1 will, in the next place, show how they express 
relations." 

" John's hat is under his arm. In this expres- 
sion, under shows the relation existing between 
hat and arm, or the relative position each has in 
regard to the other. If I say the knife lies on the 
floor, you perceive that on shows the relation 
between the knife and the floor. And if I say, I 
will throw the knife into the drawer — under the 
bed — up stairs — through the window — across the 
street — over the house, &c, the several prepo- 
sitions express the different relations existing 
between the knife and the other nouns, drawer, 
bed, stairs, window, street, and house."' 

The first example is — 

John's hat is under his arm." 

Under shows no relation — this preposition de- 
notes a place — and the verb asserts that the hat is 
in this place. If, however, one is resolved on 
maintaining that under denotes relation, we ask 
what sort of relation it is ! A local relation — a 
place relation. But under denotes, not relation, 
but place— and by asserting through the verb, is, 
that the hat occupies this place, a relation is at 
once implied, or inferred, to exist between the hat, 
and the arm. The relation, then, is a matter of 
inference. Should D. say that he purchased a lot 
of land of B., a relation is at once inferred : for, 
says the mind, how could this act of purchasing take 
place without some relation between the parties to 
the contract? Yet, we humbly believe, that no one 
would undertake to assert that the verb, purchase, 
expresses a relation I ! The word, purchase, 
expresses an action, in performing which, a rela- 
tion must take place — this relation, however, is a 
consequential thing, and must, if denoted at all, 
be expressed by another word. The act of pur- 
chasing, has rendered D. a purchaser — hence 
purchaser is the word which expresses the rela- 
tion of D. to B. 

It may be said, for the sake of variety in the 
mode of communication, that under shows the 
relation of place. So, also, may it be said, that 
has shows the relation of possession ; as, John has 
a book. 

If under points out a relation between the hat, 
and the arm, certainly has expresses a relation 
between John, and his book ! Hence, has, accord- 



ing to Mr. Kirkham, is as much a preposition as 
under. 1 But to settle this fact, we need only 
observe, that of, and has, denote the same thing. 
Therefore, if of is a preposition, because it showg 
a relation, has, by parity of reasoning, must also 
be a preposition ! 

1. "The book of John." 

2. " John has a book !" 

Of, and has, expresses the relation of possession, 
hence both are prepositions ! ! 

Again — " John resembles Nancy." 

" Resembles" expresses the relation of likeness, 
of similarity ; and it must, of course, be a prepo- 
sition ! ! But, replies the reader, perhaps has and 
resembles do not serve to connect as the prepositions 
do ! Let us see — 

John book ! 

John Nancy i 

These verbs, then, like all others, connect, and 
show a relation — hence they are prepositions ! • 

" John drinks water." 

" Drinks" shows the relation in which John 
stands to the water ! 

" John obeys his teacher." 

" Obeys" shows the relation which John bears 
to his teacher — hence this verb is a. preposition .' 

" John governs his teacher." 

" Governs" expresses the relation of John to his 
teacher ; hence, this verb is a preposition '. ! 

" Red cloth." 

" Red" expresses the relation which this quality 
bears to the cloth : hence red is a preposition ! .' 

"He is good; therefore he is happy." 

" Therefore" is a conjunction, and shows the 
relation between the cause, and effect; this con- 
junction, then, which points out the relation of 
cause, and effect, is in truth a preposition ! 

We defy ingenuity itself, to form a definition 
of any denomination of words upon relation, 
or connection? There are many prepositions 
which express a want of relation ; as, he is from 
home, he is without money ! 

But even if no preposition expressed a destitu- 
tion of relation, yet as verbs, conjunctions, adjec- 
tives, and all other denominations of words, 
connect, and show relations, as clearly as do the 
prepositions, how can a definition of a preposition 
be founded upon relation, or connection ? Let us, 
for one moment, consider the meaning of the word, 
relation. This word means a likeness, a reference, 
a respect to. 

" John eats apples." 

Here, eats has a reference to John, and apples — 
yes, eats shows the relation of John to the 
apples ! 

" That is the lad who writes so well." 

By omitting who, it will be seen that the same 
mechanical vacuity is produced, which the omission 
of any preposition would create : 

" That is the lad writes so well." 



88 



APPEAL. 



Who keeps up the relation in sense, sound, and 
mechanism, which actually exists between the lad 
and his action. 

But it may he said that this sentence can be 
understood without who. This we grant — so, also, 
could the following sentence be understood without 
in — 

" When corn is ripe — October ! ! 

It is clear, then, that pronouns, according to the 
eld definition of a preposition, are indeed, prepo- 
sitions ! ! ! 

1. "John is rich — but James is poor." 

2. is rich — but is poor. 

Is there not a complete want of connection, and 
relation in the second instance ? What, then, does 
this prove ? It demonstrates that, even nouns are, 
by the old English Grammar, prepositions ! ! 

1. "John went for a dollar." 

2. John went — a dollar ! ! 

3. John went for a ! ! 

4. John -for a dollar ! ! 

5. went for a dollar ! ! 

1. "Jane has been loved by John." 

2. Jane has been loved — John. 

3. Jane loved — John ! ! 

Let us now close this chapter by congratulating 
the old school grammarians on having so able a 
commentator as Mr. Samuel Kirkham, to defend 
their errors ! 

PREPOSITION'. 

What is the meaning of the word, preposition ? 
This word is made directly from the Latin pr&po- 
sitio. The word, however, is formed indirectly 
from prcB, which means before, and pono which 
signifies to put. From this derivation of the word, 
it is made, forced, to mean the word which is 
placed before another word. But are not a, an, 
and the placed before the nouns to which they 
belong ? Why, then, are not these articles, these 
joints, prepositions 1 1 ? 

1. He saw a man. 

The man drove an ox. 

Why is not the, before man, a preposition ! ? 

Why, too, is not an, before ox, a preposition ! ? 

Why is not a, before man, a preposition ! ? 

Are not these words placed before their nouns !? 

1. "Osgood men." 

2. John went with these young people to the 
most distant part in yonder field. 

Of is a preposition. That is, of is placed before ! 
But, before what word is of placed ? Of is put 
before good. Of, then, is a preposition of good I ! 

Will it be said that of is a preposition in relation 
to men ? This cannot be sustained for a moment. 
Of is not placed before men — of is placed before 
good. 

Good is placed before men. 

Why, then, is not good a preposition ! ! ? Be- 
cause the word, preposition, has no strength — no 
virtue — no import. Appropriate technicals acquire 



strength by application ; but lax ones grow more, 
and more feeble, till they become perfectly power- 
less. A word is called a preposition because it 
comes before the word with which it makes sense. 
Yet of, although it does not come before the word 
with which it makes sense, is called a preposition ! 

But this is not all — for good, which actually 
comes before the noun with which it makes sense, 
is called not a preposition, but an adjective ! ! 
What a sure guide the pupil finds for practice, in 
this theory ! ! 

"In the beginning was the word." 

Is in the preposition of beginning ? No ! 

In is the preposition of the ! ! In is placed be- 
fore the. The is the preposition of beginning ! ! 
Yet in the process of parsing, in is called the pre- 
position of beginning, and the is no preposition at 
all — the is a. joint, an article! 

If words are classed in reference to their posi- 
tion in regard to other words, should we not have 
post-positions, as well as pre-positions .' ? 

1. Whom do you speak of? 

2. " I speak of John." 

If of, in the second sentence, is a ^rc-position, 
is it not a postposition in the first ! ? 

Upon this principle there could be but two parts 
of speech in any sentence. 

1. Pre-positions, and 

2. Post-positions. 

What an expressive nomenclature it makes ! 

With what perfect distinctness does the word, 
preposition, express the exact grammatical charac- 
ter of words ! ? Of happens to be placed before 
another word : and, as its entire grammatical 
character lies in this exact position, this entire 
character is fully portrayed by the mere utterance 
of this illegitimate technical, preposition ! ! 

We say, illegitimate, because the suffix, Hon, 
which constitutes an essential part of this word, 
should not be incorporated with words that arc 
applied to things. The affix, Hon, signifies action 
— and it should be confined to words which are 
the names of actions : 

1. Subtract — subtraction. 

2. Lament — lamenta/zon. 

3. Dedicate — dedication. 

We may be told that there are exceptions to 
this doctrine. For instance : fortify — forti/fcc/ion. 

That fortification is applied to the wall which 
fortifies, is true. This wall is a strong fortifi- 
cation. 

Here, the word, to which Hon is affixed, slips 
off of the action, to the thing which performs it. 
But this application, even under the partial sanc- 
tion of the circumstances, is illegitimate. 

Preposition should be used, not as the name of 
a word, but as the name of the act of placing one 
thing, or word before another. 

Of good men. 

The preposition oxof, before good, is according 
to the genius of our language. The preposition 



APPEAL. 



89 



of good, before of, would be contrary to the genius 
of it. 

Her e preposition is properly used. But, as before 
is found in the first part of the word preposition, 
with should be used instead of before ; as, 

Tiie preposition of good, with men, is just. 

THE SUBSTITUTE. 
THE PREPOSITION DENOMINATION. 

The preposition denomination is a small class 
of uncordictive branch words appropriated to the 
nouns, and pronouns of the uncordictive monos, to 
express where, or what one thing is in respect to 
another ; as, 

1. Joseph is in the house. [Wliere? — in.] 

2. John is on the house. [Where ? — on.] 

3. Johnson is under the house. [Where? — 
under.] 

4. Stephen was at the house. [Where? — at.] 

5. Samuel will be over the house. [Where? — 
over.] 

6. The bird flew between the trees. [Where? — 
between.] 

7. The belt was about his waist. [Where? — 
about.] 

8. He went out about the third hour, [Where? 
— about.] 

Where was this act in respect to the third hour? 
Was it under, over, or beyond ? it was about. 
That is, it was in the neighbourhood of the third 
hour. 

9. Paul was about to open his mouth. [Where ? 
about.] 

Where was Paul in respect to the act of opening 
his mouth ? he was near the act — he was about it. 

10. " They were about to flee out of the ship." 
[Where ?— about.] 

That is, they were about, or in the neighbour- 
hood of the fleeing out of the ship. 

What brought them so near this act? the pre- 
paration which they had made to do it. 

11. They were then about sixty men. Where? 
— about.] 

Sixty men is a numerical mark, and they num- 
bered so many that they came into the neighbour- 
hood of this mark — they, in number, were about 
this mark — near it. 

12. They stood about the room. [ Where ? — not 
under, but about.] 

13. He was speaking about me. [Wliere did 
the ideas come? — about.] 

The act of speaking may have been miles from 
me; but the ideas, the sentiments, which were 
uttered, are represented to be about me ; and, as 
they are represented to be near me, the conclusion 
is that they concerned me. If a thing is placed by, 
or about me, the fair inference is that it respects, 
or concerns me. 

14. " I must be about my Father's business." 
[Where ? — about.] 

Why be by it, about it ? that I may attend to it. 



15. Scatter the seed about the field. [ Where ? 

not under, not above, not beyond, but about.] 

16. Give me peace above all other things. 
[What peace is.] 

Here above shows what peace is in respect to 
all other things. Well, what is peace in respect 
to all other things ? Above says that it is superior 
to all other things — above says that, in respect to 
all other things, peace is the greater blessing. 
What is peace in respect to all other things ? it is 
greater. In respect to what is peace inferior ? in 
respect to the Supreme Being. 

17. Henry was called after his uncle. [What 
uncle is.] 

What is the uncle in respect to the act of 
naming Henry ? After says that the uncle was 
the pattern, the model, which governed the act of 
naming Henry. 

18. John went after his book. [What the book 
is.] 

What is the book in respect to went ? the book 
in respect to this action, is a cause. The book, 
says after, produced a motive, an inducement, in 
John to go. If so, the book, in respect to this 
action is a primary cause. 

19. They walk after the flesh. [What the flesh 
is.] 

What is the flesh in respect to the walking of 
these people? After says that it is a guide, a 
law. 

20. He esteemed virtue before gold. [What 
virtue is.] 

Virtue, in respect to gold, is a superior. So says 
before. 

21. And he set Ephraim before Manasseh, 
[What Ephraim is.] 

22. The world was all before them. [Where ? 
before, not behind.] 

23. In history, John is behind his class. 
[Where? behind.] 

24. John is behind his class in history. [ Where ? 
in, not on.] 

25. John is below me in the class. [ Where ? 
below.] 

26. James went as a soldier. [What James 
was.] 

What does as express here ? As expresses what 
James was in respect to a soldier. Well, what 
does as say James was in respect to a soldier ? as 
says that James was identical with a soldier. 
[See As, Book I. p. 35.] 

[Words of the Preposition Denomination ex- 
press where, or what one thing is in respect to 
another.] 

27. John took this note for good money. [What 
the note is.] 

For shows what this note was, in John's esti- 
mation, in respect to good money. Well, what 
does for say the note was in respect to good money, 
according to John's estimation ? for says that the 
note, in John's estimation, was identical with 



90 



APPEAL. 



good money. In this case, /or, and as, are nearly 
synonymous. John took this note for good money. 
But James took that note as bad money. 

28. Mr. Jones took all the money but this note. 
[What the note is.] 

This note is the excepted, the subtracted, thing. 
This character of the note is expressed by but. 
But is employed to express that, in respect to the 
money from which this note is taken, the note is 
an excepted, a subtracted, bill. (Book. I. p. 43.) 

29. What man having put his hand to the 
plough, and looking back, is fit (for the kingdom) 
of God ? [What the man is in respect to the 
kingdom.] 

The principal cordiction in this syllabane, is 
that of a bold affirmation. True, the words are 
packed in the interrogatory form. But this mode 
of packing them is adopted to give the negation, 
which is the only thing affirmed, greater force. 
The sense is this, viz. No man who puts his 
hand to the plough, and looks back, is fit for the 
kingdom of God. 

For is of the preposition denomination ; and it is 
used to show what the man is in respect to this cer- 
tain kingdom. Well, what is the character of the 
man in respect to this particular kingdom ? For 
affirms it to be that of fitness. 

Why does the writer use a preposition which is 
calculated to express fitness, a suitableness, in the 
man, when he wishes to express that the very man 
is not fit? He expresses the fitness that he may 
have an opportunity to deny it ? 

No man who does the certain acts mentioned in 
this sentence, is fit for the kingdom. 

No does not deny the fitness of the man in 
general : no denies his fitness for this certain 
kingdom. 

With reference to this kingdom, the man who 
does so, and so, is not fit. Still with respect to 
other places, he may be perfectly fit. (Book III.) 
30. " But I tell you (of a truth) there be some 
standing here which shall not taste of death till 
they see the kingdom of God." 

[Of shows what truth is in respect to all that 
part of the sentence which follows the word, 
truth.] 

Well what does of say concerning the character 
of truth in respect to this certain part of the sen. 
tence ? Of says that truth is the source of the 
complex fact stated in this part of the sentence. 
I tell you. 
That is, I tell to you. That is, I bring to you. 
Well, what do I bring ? I bring what is stated in 
the following syllabane: 

" There be some standing here which shall 
not taste of death till they see the kingdom of 
God:' 

This is what I tell — or this is what I bring to 
you. In what do I bring it to you? in a basket 
made out of words. Whence do I get this thing, 
the fact which I tell, or bring to you in this verbal 



basket ? I derived it out of truth. Very much as 
the hatter derives the hats out of fur, I derive this 
fact out of truth. 

But what object is to be gained by representing 
that truth is the source of this fact ? By this 
representation every one is bound to infer that the 
fact itself is true. As a hat which is made of fur, 
is a fur hat, so a statement which is made of truth, 
is a true statement. (Book III.) 

31. He was led up (of the spirit.) 

The spirit is the agent — hence the source. 
(Book III.) 

32. " In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, 
I command you to rise up, and walk." 

What is the name in respect to the act, called 
command? In says that the name is a com- 
mission. 

In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, I 
command you. 

That is, in the commission of this personage, I 
command you. 

The name is used for the whole paper of com- 
mission, because the name, the signature, of him 
who gives power, renders the paper specifying the 
power, given, valid, efficient. In shows that, in 
respect to this act, this name is a com?nission 
authorizing the agent to act. Book III. 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

THE CONJUNCTION. 

A Conjunction is a part of speech that is 
chiefly used to connect sentences ; so as out of two 
or more sentences to make but one ; it sometimes 
connect only words ; as, Thou and he are happy 
because you are good ; Two, and three are five. 
Murray. 

What is the difference between Mr. Murray's 
definition of a conjunction, and his definition of a 
preposition ? 

Prepositions serve to connect words with one 
another and to show the relation between them ; 
as, He went from London to York ; She is above 
disguise ; They are supported by industry. — 
Murray. 

The above definition of the conjunction naturally 
falls into two parts — and of these we shall speak 
in their order. 

1. " A Conjunction is a part of speech that is 
chiefly used to connect sentences ; so as out of two 
or more sentences to make but one." 

2. " It sometimes connects only words." 
Part first — "used to connect sentences;" as, 

Thou and he are happy because you are good." 

Now, here are two sentences : namely, " Thou 
and he are -happy" and '■'■you are good" And 
" because" is said to be a conjunction, connecting 



APPEAL. 



91 



these two distinct sentences in a way which makes 
them both into one ! 

The only way in which because connects the 
two sentences is that of showing or expressing that 
the second is the cause of the first — 

"Thou and he are happy." But from what 
cause, or source ? " You are good" is the cause, 
and the word, because is placed before this mono, 
you are good, to express that this very mono 
denotes the cause of the happiness of thee, and 
him mentioned in the first sentence — 

[" Thou and he are happy] because (you are 
good.") 

The only way, then, in which " because" con- 
verts these two sentences into one sentence, is by 
expressing the relation of cause. Now, if the fact 
of expressing the causative character of one sen- 
tence converts two distinct, separate, sentences, 
into one sentence, what shall we say of the follow- 
ing instances ? 

Romans, xiii. 1, 2. — " Let every soul be subject 
unto the higher powers." 

"For one believeth that he may eat all things : 
another who is weak, eateth herbs." 

Here for is a conjunction, expressing the same 
kind of relation, denoted by because in Mr. Mur- 
ray's instance of illustration ; yet here are not 
only two distinct sentences, but two distinct 



Romans, xiv. — " Him that is weak in the faith, 
receive you, but not to doubtful disputations." 

2. "Because one believeth that he may eat all 
things : another who is weak, eateth herbs." 

Romans, xv. 2, 3. — " Let every one of us please 
his neighbour for his good to edification." 

5. "Because even Christ pleased not himself; 
but as it is written, The reproaches of them that 
reproached thee, fell on me." 

Are these two verses converted into one sentence 
by the conjunction, because 1 ? 

Thus much for Mr. Murray's attempt to convert 
the cause, and effect into one thing ! The most 
that can be said in favor of Mr. M's. notions, is, 
that the conjunction subjoins a new sentence, 
erects a new building near an old one, or near an 
older one. But does the act of erecting the new 
house, convert the old, and the new, into one 
building ! ? The conjunction exerts no influence 
over the preceding sentence — the conjunction 
brings a new sentence into the discourse; as, 
[Thou and he are happy] because (you are good") 

The old, or first, sentence is in brackets, and is 
introduced without any aid from because. The 
second sentence is, " you are happy," and is 
advertised at least by the conjunction, because. 
But in what way because can convert these two 
affirmations into one affirmation, is to us myste- 
rious indeed ! 

Part second — " used to connect words ; as, an 
apple and a pie." 



It is said that and is a conjunction connecting 
apple, and pie. But in what way, or in what 
particular, and connects these, or any other words, 
we are not informed. The truth is, that these 
words have no connection. These words are 
separated by and ! — apple, and pie. And, not 
only docs not connect these nouns, but it actually 
divides, yes, separates one from the other; for, if 
we omit and, these words have a close connection 
— apple pie. 

Give me an apple pie ! 

Give me an apple, and pie ! 

A conjunction is a word used to connect words, 
or sentences, in construction, and to show the 
dependence of the terms so connected ; as, Thou 
and he are happy, because you are good. — Goold 
Brown. 

" To connect words, or sentences in construc- 
tion !" 

Have we not already proved in the chapter on 
the preposition, that verbs, adjectives, articles, 
adverbs, nouns, pronouns, participles and even 
interjections, connect in construction .' ? 

" God created all things." 

God all things ! 

Now, does not the omission of created break up, 
and break down, the construction, the frame- 
work ? 

And does not created show the particular rela- 
tion of God to things ; and also the precise 
dependence of things on God? 

The verb, created, then, paints Mr. G. B. upon 
the subject of the conjunction, to the life ! ! 

1. That the conjunction is not distinguished 
from other parts of speech by its dictionary im- 
port, is proved from the fact that conjunctions are 
not peculiar in signification — 

" I went to him in haste for he cried out for 
anguish." 

Here both fors denote cause — yet the first is a 
conjunction ; the second, a preposition. 

2. That the conjunctions are not distinguished 
by their powers to connect, is proved from the 
fact that all the other parts of speech have the 
same connecting powers which the conjunction 



" I went to him in haste — he cried out — an- 
guish !" 

Does the ommission of for, the conjunction, or 
the ommission of for, the preposition, produce the 
greater wreck in the frame-work of this sentence ! ? 
Let us omit to, and in — 

" I went him haste he cried out in anguish !" 

Do not prepositions, then, connect as well as 
conjunctions ? 

Let us next omit the verbs — 

" I to him in haste for he out for anguish !" 

Here the omission of went, and cried, shakes 
this verbal frame-work into the huge pile of monu- 
mental ruins beneath which Mr. Murray, and 



92 



APPEAL. 



Goold Brown lie buried without hope of resur- 
rection .' 

Prepositions, and conjunctions originally stood 
in one class, and went under the name of conjunc- 
tions ; but for a good reason, the class has been 
divided into two families : conjunctions, and pre- 
positions. And, strange to tell, these two classes 
have been defined without the least reference to 
the difference between, the two parts of speech, 
or to the true character of either ! And we are 
now to point out this difference, and to express 
the true character of both '. 

1. What is the difference between the frame- 
work relation of a conjunction, and that of a 
preposition ? It is this, namely, one is individual ; 
the other is collective — the preposition belongs 
to an individual word, the conjunction belongs to 
a collection of words ! The conjunction belongs 
to a whole company of words, but a preposition 
belongs to one word only, of a company. The 
preposition seizes but one bird of the flock — 
whereas, the conjunction seizes the whole flock. 

ILLUSTRATION. 

" I went to him in haste— -for he cried out for 
anguish." 

1. To has a frame-work relation with an indi- 
vidual word, namely, him. 

2. In has a frame-work relation with an indi- 
vidual word, namely, haste. 

3. For has a frame-work relation with the 
whole assemblage, " he cried out." 

4. For, in the last instance, has a frame-work 
relation with an individual word, namely, anguish. 
Thus much for the difference. 

Let us now see what is the characteristic of the 
words which the old school grammarians call 
conjunctions. The characteristic of a conjunc- 
tion is its frame-work relation to an entire mono. 
The conjuction is not distinguished from the pre- 
position by any difference in the ideas which the 
two express. The conjunction may denote cause; 
and so may the preposition ; as, " He trembled 
for fear, for he saw a ghost." 

Will it be pretended that the first for does not 
connect as much as the second? Let us omit 
both, that we may see which is the greater con- 
nector. 

1. He trembled fear: for he saw a ghost. 

2. He trembled for fear : he saw a ghost. 
Both fors denote cause ; both connect, although 

the first is much more necessary to keep up the 
connection of the preposition than the second ! 
Yet, the first is called a preposition — the second, 
a conjunction ! But let us now ask wherein do 
these two fors differ in their frame-work relation ? 
The first is appropriated to an individual word, 
fear ; and the second, to an entire assemblage, to 
an entire mono, of words : he saw a ghost. This 
is the difference. And there is the same differ- 
ence between the conjunction, and the article. 



The article is appropriated, not to a mono, but to 
an individual word ; as, The man saw a child. 

Nor is the conjuction distinguished less from 
the verb by the capacity in the former to be ap- 
propriated to an entire mono only, and the capa- 
city in the latter to be appropriated to individual 
words only. Every branch word except the con- 
junction, has the capacity to hold a frame-work 
connection with an individual word. Not only 
so, but no branch word, except the conjunction, 
has the capacity to hold a frame-work connection 
with an entire mono. In this particular, then, is 
to be found the distinguishing grammatic differ- 
ence between the conjunction and all the other 
branch words. 

If words are called conjunctions because they 
connect, the verb is as much entitled to be called 
a conjunction as any denomination of words in 
the language. Let this be demonstrated by omit- 
ting the verbs in the following instances. 

1. John eats apples ! 

2. John apples ! 

3. John laughs at his sister. 

4. John at his sister. 

5. John resembles me. 

6. John ■ me. 

7. He was taught by that teacher ! 

8. He by that teacher ! 

There is no conjunction in the English lan- 
guage which connects two nouns, or two verbs, or 
two adjectives : conjunctions never connect one 
word with another word ! Let us take and in the 
following sentence : 

1. " The horse, and saddle were injured." 
The old school grammarians analyze and as a 
conjunction, connecting horse, and saddle. The 
very import of and stands directly opposed to this 
disposition of the word. This conjunction means 
add. It is equal, in import, to the verb, add, in 
the imperative mode. The reader, or hearer, then 
understands from and, that he is to add some- 
thing. Now, there can be nothing added where 
there is not something already presented to which 
an addition may be made. In the sentence which 
we have just quoted, the horse is mentioned first — 
the horse being introduced, the word, and, is 
employed as a sign of some addition. And the 
question is, what it is which is to be added ? Is 
the real saddle to be added to the real horse? 
This adjection would certainly produce no very 
strange appearance. But just think what a very 
different figure this work of adjection would make, 
if the saddle should be mentioned before the horse : 
the saddle, and horse were injured ! Here we 
find, not the saddle put upon the horse, but the 
horse upon the saddle • This theory works so ill 
in practice, that even Mr. Murray himself would 
disown it ! Let us, then, enquire whether it is the 
word, saddle, which is to be added to the word, 
horse? Upon this principle, the thing injured 
was not the saddle, but the word, saddle ! 



APPEAL. 



93 



"The horse, and saddle were injured." 

But, why add the word, saddle, to the word, 
horse? "Why, that the noun, saddle, may meet 
with the same fate which the word, horse, suffers." 

This would be plausible logic if the word, 
horse, was injured — but, as not one hair of the 
noun, horse, is injured, we do not seethe propriety 
of binding by means of this verbal girth, and, 
the noun, saddle, to the noun, horse, to procure 
some injury to the noun, saddle! What, connect 
the sign&i to effect the thing signified ! ? This 
sort of philosoph} r would imprison the portrait to 
punish the criminal whom it represents ! ! No, no 
— let us reject this chaff, and resort to the kernel. 

" The horse, and saddle were injured." 

That is, the horse was injured ; and the saddle 
was injured. In other words, the horse was in- 
jured, add that the saddle was also injured. The 
author of the sentence first asserts in an imple- 
nary mono, that the horse was injured. Having 
done this in an elliptical mono, he says, add to the 
fact that the horse was injured, the fact that the 
saddle was also injured. The mono which add 
introduces is that which follows and, as may be 
seen by rendering both monos full : 

[The horse was injured ;] and (the saddle was 
injured.) 

And, then, is a conjunction, and is used to in- 
troduce an additional mono into the sentence. 

Originally, prepositions, and conjunctions, were 
classed in the same family. Both classes were 
then parsed as conjunctions. This fact indicates 
that the old school grammarians understood little 
of the true character of these two denominations 
of words. There is as much reason for inclu- 
ding the adjective, and conjunction in one class as 
there is for embracing the preposition, and con- 
junction in one ! And, was it not that the verb 
has cordictive power, there would have been just 
as good ground for including the conjunction, and 
verb in the same denomination, as there was for 
embracing the preposition, and conjunction in the 
same ! The verb is distinguished, then, from every 
other branch word, whether article, adjective, 
adverb, preposition, or conjunction, by its capacity 
to aid in forming a cordiction. And, consequently, 
every uncordictive branch word is distinguished from 
the verb by a want, a destitution, of this capacity. 

As the old school grammarians originally in- 
cluded the conjunctions, and prepositions in one 
family, and parsed them under the name of con- 
junction, it may be well enough to inquire more 
particularly in what these two denominations of 
words agree. These two denominations are alike 
in this : both are uncordictive. That is, both are 
incapable of rendering any aid in forming a cor- 
diction. In other words, both denominations are 
destitute of cordictive power. There is no con- 
junction, nor is there any preposition, which can 
render any aid in forming a cordiction. This 
may be seen from the following experiments : 



1. He of. (No cordiction.) 

2. Ye than. (No cordiction.) 

Of, and than, then, agree in this, namely, nei- 
ther has the cordictive power. 

How very different are these two denominations 
of words from the verbs. 
. 1. He is. (A cordiction.) 

2. Ye are. (A cordiction.) 

Is, and are, are verbs ; but of, and than are 
uncordictive branch words. 

Let us now see whether conjunctions, and pre- 
positions are distinguished from the article, the 
adjective, and the adverb, by a want, a destitution, 
of cordictive power. 

1. He a. (No cordiction.) 

2. He the. (No cordiction.) 

3. He old. (No cordiction.) 

4. He where. (No cordiction.) 

5. There he. (No cordiction.) 

Now, as the only analogy between the conjunc- 
tion, and the preposition, lies in the want of the 
cordictive power, is it not clear that the article, 
the adjective, and the adverb, could have been in- 
cluded with the conjunction with as much pro- 
priety as was the preposition ? 

Under Part V., (Book I. p. 79,) these denomina- 
tions are all brought into one class : they consti- 
tute the great family of uncordictive clades. But, 
while their want of the cordictive power, brings 
them into the same group, the same verbal com- 
munity, their other grammatical properties, sub- 
divide them into four classes ; namely. 

1. Conjunctions. 

2. Prepositions. 

3. Articles, and adjectives. 

4. Adverbs. 

We have already shown what it is which dis- 
tinguishes these four classes from the verb ; and 
we have also shown what it is which distinguishes 
the conjunction from the other four classes. We 
have said that the Grammatic property by which 
the conjunction is distinguished from the article, 
adjective, adverb, and preposition, is its capacity 
to be appropriated to an entire mono of words ; 
its capacity to stand conjected to an entire cordic- 
tive mono. And in reference to this frame-work 
capacity, we have defined the conjunction. 

II. ARTICLE, ADJECTIVE, AND PREPOSITION. 

Having disposed of the conjunction, let us 
devote a few moments to the article, the adjec- 
tive, and the preposition. These three parts of 
speech are distinguished from the conjunction by 
what we may denominate an individual frame- 
work appropriation. They are destitute of all 
ability to be appropriated to a mono. But, while 
they are destitute of the power to be attached to a 
mono, they have the capacity to be appropriated 
to individual words. Thus much for the feature 
| which throws these three parts of speech out of 
the uncordictive clade family. 



94 



APPEAL. 



Let us now see wherein the article, and adjec- 
tive differ from the preposition. The preposition 
has the capacity to hold a frame-work connection 
with individual words ; the article, and adjective 
have the same frame-work power. The article, 
and the adjective have the ability to be appropria- 
ted to nouns : the preposition has the same power. 

1. The men. (Article.) 

2. Good men. (Adjective.) 

3. Of men. (Preposition.) 

Although these three classes agree in each par- 
ticular which we have named — yet there is one 
particular in which they differ. The preposition 
is applicable to uncordictive nouns and uncordic- 
tive pronouns only, as, of things, of them. 

But the article and the adjective are applicable 
to the cordictive, and to the uncordictive nouns, and 
pronouns ; as, the good things are the good things. 
cor. uncor. 

1. The men saw the book. 

2. Good men do good deeds. 

3. He went with them. 

He that attempts to found a part of speech 
distinction, a part of speech difference, between the 
article, and the adjective, undertakes a task which 
he cannot accomplish. The part of speech cha- 
racteristic of the article, is the part of speech trait 
of the adjective ! Both are branches, and not 
trunks : both are uncordictive, and not cordictive. 

THE SUBSTITUTE. 
THE CONJUNCTION DENOMINATION. 

The conjunction denomination is a small class 
of uncordictive branch words appropriated to cor- 
dictive sub syllabanes, to express what the pre- 
dicates of the sub syllabanes, are to the predicates 
of the supers ; as, I called you ; but you did not 
come. 

1. [Joseph went,] (because John wanted to see 
him.) Because. 

In the trone, it is predicated of Joseph, that he 
went ; in the clad, it is predicated of John, that he 
wanted to see Joseph. Here, then, are two predicates 
— and the point to be decided is, what is one in re- 
spect to the other. This point is clearly decided 
by because : because indicates very distinctly, that 
John's desire to see Joseph was the cause of 
the going of Joseph. 

1. John wanted to see him. 

Because is appropriated to this syllabane to ex- 
press the fact that what is predicated of John was 
the cause why Joseph went. 

2. [John wanted to see Joseph,] (therefore 
Joseph went to him. Therefore. 

Here, it is predicated of Joseph, that he went to 
John. And therefore is appropriated to the sylla- 
bane which makes this predicate, to express what 
this predicate was in respect to that made of John 
in the super syllabane. Therefore says that the 
predicate made of Joseph by the syllabane to 
which it, therefore, is appropriated, was an effect, 



a consequence flowing from the predicate made of 
John by the super syllabane. 

3. [John went ;] (but he did not stay.) But. 

It is predicated of John in the super mono, 
that he went — in the sub, that he did not stay. 

But indicates that his not remaining was an in. 
consistency. An inconsistency in respect to what ? 
in respect to the fact that he went. Why is John's 
not remaining an inconsistency in respect to this 
fact ? Because his not remaining did not agree 
with the presumed purpose of his going. When 
it is asserted that John went to a wedding, it is 
presumed by him to whom this act is affirmed, 
that he remained there till the marriage was over. 
This very presumption is apart of the predicate 
which is set up in this hypothesis. If, then, the 
conduct of John was contrary to, or different from, 
the presumption raised by the predicate, his con- 
duct was, in respect to this predicate, an inconsis- 
tency. 

It may be replied, however, that John might 
account for his not remaining, in a very satisfac- 
tory way. True, but as this fiict is not a part of 
the predicate in any sense whatever, it cannot 
render his course consistent with the predicate. 

4. John went to a wedding j but he did not 
stay. 

Here it is predicated of John, that he went to a 
wedding. Hence any course of conduct on the 
part of John, which is inconsistent with, or differ- 
ent from, the legitimate impression which this 
predicate is calculated to make on the mind of 
him to whom the language is uttered, is an incon- 
sistency in respect to this predicate. 

If a man erects a fine house, and destroys it, the 
act of destroying it, is an inconsistency in respect 
to that of building it. The destruction of the house 
does not accord with any impression which the 
erecting of it was calculated to make upon the 
minds of those who knew the act of building it. 

5. John built a fine house for his son ; (but he 
destroyed it immediately.) 

Where the results are consistent with the build- 
ing of the house, and should be used ; as, 

6. John has built a fine house ; (and his son 
lives) (in it.) 

and his son lives in it. 

Why is and used before this syllabane ? to show 
that the predicate made of the son by the sylla- 
bane, 

his son lives in it, 
is a consistency in respect to the predicate made 
of John in the super syllabane : 

The living in houses is one of the common re- 
sults of building them. 

Where the result is what may naturally be ex- 
pected, and should be used ; as, 

John has gone to a wedding ; and he will stay 
till it is over. 

But where the result is eccentric, unusual, and 






APPEAL. 



95 



unlooked-for from the nature of the case, but 
should be used ; as, 

John has gone to a wedding- ; but he will not 
remain to witness the marriage 

7. John purchased salt, (and meat.) 
That is, he purchased salt ; (and he purchased 
meat.) 

In the clad, the predicate is, purchased meat. 
And, and informs the reader in advance, that this 
predicate is very similar to that in the trone. The 
act which forms the vital part of the predicate 
made of John in the clad, is nearly identical with 
that which is made of him in the trone. And the 
meat, although in a physical point of view, very 
different from salt, is here rendered very similar 
to the salt. In what respect is the meat rendered 
similar to the salt ? Both are purchased articles. 
Had not the meat been rendered similar to the 
salt hi some degree, and could not be used. 

What does and mean ? 

This conjunction expresses analogy. Where 
the predicate in the sub mono, is analogous to that 
in the super, and a conjunction is required to ex- 
press the similarity, and should be used ; as, 

John purchased my salt, (and sold his own 
meat.) 

The purchasing of the salt was a business 
transaction ; and, as the selling of the meat was 
also a business transaction, the predicate in the 
clad, is similar to that in the trone. 

To say that and connects, is to do nothing. 
Does not a verb connect ? 

1. Peter resembles her. 

2. Peter her ! 

Is it not obvious that resembles connects ? 

What is the meaning of and — or of what is and 
the sign, the name ? 

'' And," says Webster, " is a conjunction con- 
nective, or conjoining word." That the conjunc- 
tive character of and, may be well understood, he 
gives the following illustration : 

"John, and Peter, and James rode to New 
York — that is, John rode to New York ; add or 
further, Peter rode to New York ; add James rode 
to New York." According to this illustration, 
and means more, further, addition. How, then, 
can it be a conjoining word ? Was and a con- 
junction in character, it would exert as much in- 
fluence over the preceding member of the sen- 
tence, as it does over the succeeding one. But 
Mr. Webster's explanation makes and exert all its 
influence over the member of the sentence, which 
follows and: 

"John, and Peter, and James, rode to New 
York." That is, says Mr. Webster, John rode to 
New York; add or further, Peter rode to New 
York ; add James rode to New York." 

The word, and, has nothing to do with the first 
member of the paragraph, — " John rode to New 



York." The first and is employed to subjoin, to 
add, to affix, the second member to the first — and 
" Peter rode to New York." 

The second and is used, not to conjoin the 
second, and the third member of the sentence, but 
to affix, subjoin, add the third to the second. 
And, then, is a subjoining word — not a conjoining 
one. What ! is the chain which drags a log to a 
standing tree, a conjunction ? To be a conjoining 
chain, it must drag the firmly fixed tree as well as 
the log, till it brings them together. The first 
proposition is always fixed — it cannot be moved 
by and, as, "John rode to New York." 

A second proposition may be dragged to the 
first by and-, as, "John rode to New York; and 
Peter rode to New York." 

Fancy that the Bible is before you. Does the 
hand which moves Webster's Dictionary up to the 
Bible, exert any influence over the Bible? Mr. 
Webster has well illustrated one trait in the 
character of and ; but he has not illustrated any 
part of the character of a conjoining word ! The 
main trait in the character of and, which Mr. 
Webster, in common with other old school gram- 
marians, has not attempted to give, is the ex- 
pression of harmony in character with the pre- 
ceding matter. For instance — " John, and Peter, 
and James, rode to New York." Here John, 
Peter, and James, ride to the same place — in this 
they harmonize, agree — in this they are homo- 
geneous. 

John rode ; but Peter walked to New York. 
The agent character of Peter does not harmo- 
nize with that of John ; hence and cannot be used 
before Peter. 

John rode to New York ; but Peter rode to 
Boston. 

The character which Boston gives Peter, does 
not accord with that which New York gives 
John ; hence and can not be used. 

" And" signifies harmony in character. 
" A certain man planted a vineyard, and set a 
hedge about it, and digged a place for the wine 
vat, and built a tower, and let it out to husband- 
men, and went into a far country." 

These five acts have the same agent — in this 
they harmonize — hence and is properly used be- 
fore the words, set, digged, built, let, and went. 
In the following, and is properly used : 
A certain man planted a vineyard; and his 
brother set a hedge about it. 

The setting of the hedge is in harmony with 
the planting of the vineyard ; the setting results 
naturally enough from the planting. 
In the following, and can not be used : 
John built a house ; but it did not stand long. 
There is no harmony between the implied in- 
tention of the builder, and the ruin of the house ; 
it was built, not for destruction, but for duration. 
In the following, and should be used : 
John makes money ; and he keeps it. 



98 



APPEAL. 



The keeping of the money is in harmony with 
the implied purpose for which John makes it. 

In the following, and can not be used with any 
propriety. 

John makes money ; but he wastes it. 

The wasting- of the money is not in harmony 
with the implied purpose for which it is made. 

In the following, and should be used ; 

" Henry has purchased a horse, and John has 
sold an ox to-day." 

As these two acts are business transactions, 
they are in harmony one with the other. 

In the following, and can not be used : 

The Alderman heard the witness ; but he had 
not sworn him. 

The not swearing of the witness is so very in- 
consistent with the hearing of his statement, that 
the use of and would be as great a mockery in 
grammar, as such a proceeding would be in the 
administration of justice. 

The following is good in grammar, and law. 

The Alderman swore the witness, and then 
heard his statement. 

And signifies that the character of the matter 
which follows it, is in harmony with that of the 
matter which precedes it. The word, but, and 
several other conjunctions signify the reverse. 
8. [John is older] (than his brother.) 

That is, [John is older] (than his brother is 
old.) 

It is predicated of John, that he is older — and it 
is predicated of his brother that he is old. 

The quintessence of both predicates, is age. 
John has more age than his brother. 

There is no comparison between John, and his 
brother here : the comparison is instituted between 
the ages of the two persons. 

The predicates are older, and old. And than is 
employed to show what the predicate, old, is in 
respect to the other predicate, older. Well, what 
is old in respect to older ? Old, in respect to 
older, is a criterion, a rule, a producer of supe- 
riority. When is John older? Why, when he 
stands by the side of his brother. How are these 
persons brought together ? By the use of than. 
What is the meaning of than ? than means that. 
I am taller than James. 

When am I taller ? when that James is placed 
by me. I am taller. But how, by what means 
am I rendered taller ? Let the means be pointed 
out by than which is really that. 

I am taller that James is tall. 

It is not the province of than to institute a 
comparison : the comparison is suggested by er 
I am taller. 

The idea of comparison is fully suggested by 
er. Than (that) acts as a mere index to express 
the fact that the thing named after than is the one 
by which my height is to be measured with a 
view to make me taller. 



I am taller than James is tall. 

That is, when the height of that James is the 
criterion by which to decide my height I am taller. 
But when the height of that tree, is taken as the 
criterion by which to decide my height, I am not 
taller. 

Than (that) is the index pointing to the object 
named after it (than) as the subject of the quality 
that is to be the criterion by which to decide the 
amount of the same quality in the subject named 
before than. 

Whether I am happy or not, in the use of criterion 
as a means for expressing what the sub predicate 
is in respect to the super, I am sure that I am 
right in saying that than, in meaning, is nothing 
but that. It is common to change the form of a 
word to adapt the word to a new place. By the 
substitution of n for t, that has become than. 
Both forms, however, have the same meaning. 

I am taller, that man's height being the crite. 
rion by which to decide. 

9. [He commenced his house long ago;] (yet it 
is not finished.) 

It is not finished, expresses a state which, in 
relation to the super predicate, is an inconsistency. 
That is, the unfinished condition of the house as 
a result, does not agree with the predicate which 
is made of him in the tronc. 

10. [John can not go] (unless his brother pays 
him.) 

Unless shows that the predicate in the syllabane 
to which unless is appropriated, is, in respect to 
the predicate made of John in the trone, a si ne 
qua non, an indispensable condition. 

(Unless a man is good) [he can not be 
happy.] 

11. (Although he promised to call) [I have not 
seen him.] 

I have not seen him is a modest way of saying 
that, he has not called. The sense, then, is this : 

[He has not called] (although he promised 
to call.) 

Although indicates that the predicate in the 
syllabane to which although is appropriated, is an 
inconsistency in respect to the predicate made in 
the super syllabane. 

12. [John went] (notwithstanding his mother 
wished him to remain) (at home.) 

Notwithstanding is always a conjunction, and 
always indicates that the predicate in the syllabane 
to which notwithstanding is appropriated, is an 
obstacle in respect to the predicate in the super 
syllabane. 

NOT ONLY. 

13. [Henry is not only brave,] (but he is kind.) 
Not only is appropriated to the syllabane which 

begins with but. Not only is appropriated to this 
syllabane to indicate what the predicate in the 
syllabane, is in respect to the predicate in the 
trone, Henry is brave. Well, what does not only 



APPEAL. 



97 



say on this subject ? Not only says that the predi- 
cate made of Henry in the sub syllabane, is an 
unusual addition, an unexpected addition, to the 
predicate made of him in the trone. Not only 
intimates that it is very rare that we can subjoin 
kindness to bravery. 

[Henry is (not only) brave, but he is kind.] 

14. [Henry is (both brave,] (and , , kind.) 

15. [Henry is brave] (as well as , , kind.) 
[Henry is brave] [as well as he is kind.] 

The words, as well as, are taken as one word. 
As well as, as here used, is nearly synonymous 
with and, and is used to show what the predicate 
in its own mono, is in respect to that in the trone. 
Well, what does as well as say on this subject? 
" As icell as says that, in respect to the predicate 
ir. the trone, that in the clad, is a principal. How 
so ? There are two attributes predicated of Henry. 
One is bravery, the other is kindness : 

[Henry is brave~\ (as well as he is kind.) 

From the current of thought in this proposition, 
it is obvious that this sentence is not the Jirst upon 
the subject of Henry. It is more than probable 
ttat something like the following, had been said 
before the above sentence was uttered : 

M I am well aware that Henry is kind, which 
with me, is every thing." 

Henry is brave too. 

That is, his bravery, though a mere secondary 
thing with you, sir, may be added to his kindness. 

The difference between and, and as well as 
is this — and indicates that there is no difference 
in importance between the two predicates; as, 
[Henry is brave] (and kind.) 

But as well as indicates that the predicate in its 
own syllabane, is more important to the party 
concerned than that in the super syllabane ; as, 
[Henry is brave] (as well as kind.) 

Says John, 

" Father, I wish you would send Stephen, the 
Bervant, to me." 

Says the father, in reply, 

[I will send Nathaniel] (as well as Stephen.) 

It would be wrong to say, 

[I will send Stephen] (as well as Nathaniel.) 

Because this mode of packing the parts of the 
sentence, would not only indicate that, in the 
estimation of the son, Nathaniel is the more im- 
portant servant for him, but would indicate that 
the son had actually spoken to the father for 
Nathaniel. 

Mr. Jones says, Mr. Shepherd. 

" Have you a good cow which you will sell 
me?" 

I have, replies Mr. Shepherd, 

" Here is one which I will sell you.' 

But, says Mr. Jones, 

" She has a calf by her side." 



True — but I will sell you the cow (as well as the 
calf.) 

This not only makes the calf more important 
than the cow, but intimates that Mr. Jones is de- 
sirous to purchase a calf. 

The following, however, will give a true expres- 
sion of the thoughts of Mr. Jones. 

True — but I will sell you the calf as well as the 
cow. 

It may not be amiss to remark here that, in as 
well as, as retains the import of identity which is 
ascribed to it under page 35, Book I. 

I will sell you the calf as well as the cow. 

That is, on the same liberal terms. But whence 
the idea of liberal? from well. I will sell ycu the 
calf on the same well terms on which I will sell 
you the cow. 

That is on the same good terms. 

Henry is brave as well as kind. 

That is, he may be considered brave with the 
same wellness (if I may use this form,) with 
which he can be considered kind. 

Another interesting trait in the character of as, 
is its retrospective, backward, allusion, or reference. 
James went as a soldier. 

A little attention will show that as refers back 
to James ; for as is here used to express the idea 
that James is identical with a soldier. As is here 
a preposition, and shows what James is in respect 
to a soldier — not what a soldier is in respect to 
James. 

Henry is brave as well as kind. 

Here, too, is the same backward allusion by as 
well as. The bravery is as well predicated of 
Henry as the kindness. 

IF. 

1. John went to see if he had a letter in the 
office. 

In this instance, if is used to indicate that the 
predicate which follows it, is a problem for solu- 
tion, in respect to the predicate in the super part 
of the sentence. 

2. John will take out the letter if they will 
allow him to. 

Here if is employed to express that, in respect 
to the super predicate, the sub is a condition. 
The use of if to express the character of a condi- 
tion, explains how this word has come to be em- 
ployed to express the problem character. In all 
conditions, there is an uncertainty — they may be 
complied with, and they may not. All conditions, 
as terms on which events depend, involve a prob- 
lem. And, as if is generally used to express the 
character of a predicate which is a condition that 
always involves a problem, it has come to be used 
occasionally, to express the character of a predi- 
cate which is a problem for solution, without any 
condition whatever. 



98 



APPEAL. 



CHAPTER XIX. 



OF THE ARTICLE. 



The definition of the article runs thus — "An 
article is a word prefixed to substantives to point 
them out, and to show how far their signification 
extends." 

" An apple-tree is a tree which produces apples." 
Inverted — " Every tree which bears apples, is an 
apple-tree." 

" An article is a word prefixed to substantives 
to point them out, and to show how far their sig- 
nification extends." 

Inverted — Every word which is prefixed to 
substantives, and points them out, and shows how 
far their signification extends, is an Article. 

But is the proposition made in the inverted 
order of the definition, Zrwe? Surely not. There 
are but three words in the language which are 
called articles. Yet there are thousands which 
sustain the very character that Mr. Murray's 
definition gives to the article ! ! For examples — 
red, in red house — my, in my hat — ten, in ten 
books — John's, in John's coat. 

Now all these words with the exception of the 
noun, John's, and the pronoun, my, are adjectives ! 

"A or an is styled the indefinite article ; it is 
used in a vague sense." (Murray.) 

"The is styled the definite article; because it 
ascertains what particular thing or things are 
meant." (Murray.) 

With respect to Mr. Murray's indefinite article, 
it may be observed that no such article can exist 
without destroying, completely, his general defini- 
tion of an article. That definition requires that, 
a word should be definite to become an article. 
" An article, says that definition, must point out 
substantives, and show how far their significations 
extend." But can an indefinite word point out, 
and show how far the signification of a noun ex- 
tends ? 

Some have said that a limits or points out in a 
numeral sense ; as, a book. 

These should recollect that, the singular num- 
ber, or unity is suggested by the number of the 
noun — singular, look — plural, books. 

Much has been written upon a ; and as we 
conceive, without presenting this word in its true 
character — Harris has attempted an explanation 
of this letter— but he has failed of giving the word 
its real function. Johnson has made a like 
attempt, with similar success. And Lowth has 
tried his able pen upon this word, in vain. Mr. 
Murray, aiming at nothing original, has labored 
to embrace in his grammar, all the opinions which 
the above named scholars entertained, and ex- 
pressed of this letter. Hence in his grammar, we 
first find this article a definite word—but secondly, 
an indefinite, a vague particle ! ! 



The learned Noah Webster has written a work 
which he has styled, 

" A Philosophical and Practical Grammar." 
In this he has made some severe strictures upon 
the opinions of Harris, Lowth, Johnson, and 
others. Having made a few remarks upon their 
views of this article, he undertakes to give his 
own of this word — and this opinion, together 
with those given by the other authors, we shall 
here take the liberty to examine. 

"A leaves the individual unascertained ; whereas 
the article, the, ascertains the individual. (Harris's 
Hermes.) 

If Harris is correct, how can a be an article 
without destroying the received definition of an 
article ? Harris says, that "A leaves the indivi- 
dual unascertained''' 1 — whereas the received defi- 
nition of an article says that, an article points out, 
that it shows how far — or in other phrase, "An 
article is a word which ascertains the individual, 
or individuals that are meant by the writer, or 
speaker." 

Hear Harris again — " A respects our primary 
perception, and denotes individuals as unknown." 

But the received definition of an article, declares 
that a word to be an article must point out, and 
ascertain the individuals — " how far the significa- 
tion of the noun extends" — That is, to what indi. 
vidual, or individuals the noun reaches. 

Hear Lowth. " A is used in a vague sense, to 
point out one single thing of the kind." 

That is, A is used in an indefinite sense to de- 
fine ! ! ! Will the reader look again — " A, says 
Lowth, is used in a vague sense to point out ! !" 

*• A" says Lowth again, " determines it to be 
one single thing of the .kind, leaving it still uncer- 
tain which." 

But a never determines the kind of a thing — 
this is done by the noun itself; as, a book. 

Does a here determine the kind of object ? It is 
the word, book, which shows what the writer has 
in view. This noun determines the object to be 
a book, and not an apple — a book, and not another 
thing. Then, to ascertain what kind of a book, 
we must use some adjective ; as, a new book — a 
grammar book, &c. 

" A" says Lowth, " is used in a vague sense, 
to point out one single thing." 

The adjective, one, is used to point out unity. 
But we are much deceived if a is so used. The 
expressions, A man was lost, and one man was 
lost, are very different. The last conveys more 
than the first. Besides, the leading ideas are 
different. In the first, the proposition is founded 
upon the species of being ; as, A man was lost 
here last night — not a horse — not an ox — not a 
child. 

But, in the second, the proposition turns almost 
solely upon the number of men lost. It seems to 
have been previously known what kind of being 
was lost — and this fact being before ascertained, 



APPEAL. 



99 



the only important item, of which they to whom 
the sentence is addressed, are ignorant, is the 
number, lost. When a is used, the proposition 
turns upon the species, or race of things; as, give 
me a book — not a pen. 

But, when one is used, the species or race is 
known before ; and the proposition turns entirely 
upon the number of the individuals ; as, give me 
one book. That is, give me one, and not two, or 
more. 

When a is used, the mind is led from one deno- 
mination, or kind to another. Hence, when we 
say, Rome was not built in a day, the length of 
time, is not sought after in days, but in a different 
denomination ; as, Rome was not built in a day, 
but in a century. If, however, we say, Rome was 
not built in one day, no new denomination is inti- 
mated : and the quantity of time is sought after in 
number of days ; as, Rome was not built in one 
day, but in ten, sixty, eighty. Surely it would be 
laughable to find the following : Rome was not 
built in a day, but in sixty ! Hence we see that 
a gives no intimation of unity. 

The answers to the following simple questions, 
must show that, a has no reference to unity. 

How many horses have you, Sir ? I have a 
horse ! 

How many horses have you, Sir ? I have one 
horse. 

Again, if we ask — "What animal is that in 
yonder field ?" 

The answer must be given with a, not one ; as, 
what animal is that in yonder field ? a sheep. But 
if we ask as to the number — the answer must be 
given with one , as, How many sheep are in 
yonder field ? one. 

Now let us hear Mr. Webster : 
"The history of this word is briefly this. An 
and one are the same word — an, the Saxon or 
English orthography, and one a corruption of the 
French un or une. The Greek en, the Latin, unus, 
that is, an .with the usual ending of adjectives, and 
the Saxon an or ane, are mere dialectical differ- 
ences of orthography, as are the German ein, and 
the Dutch een. Before the conquest, an was used 
in computation of numbering — an, twa, threo,— 
one, two, three, Sec. ; and the n was used before 
consonants, as well as before vowels — ' Ac him 
saed hyra on' — But to him said one of them. — 
Alfred Orosius, lib. 6. 30. ' An cyning' — one 
king. — Sax. Chron. p. 82. This word was also 
varied to express case and gender, like the Latin 
unus. ' And thaes ymb anne monath' — And 
within this one month. — Sax. Chron. 82. 'The 
en tham anum scipe waeron' — Who were in that 
one ship. — ibm. 98. An, therefore, is the original 
English adjective or ordinal number one ; and was 
aiever written a until after the conquest. 

" The conquest, with other innovations, intro- 
duced into books the French un, une, from the 
Latin unus; the French being the only court 



language for three or four centuries. But the 
English an was retained in popular usage ; and 
both words, or rather both orthographies, main- 
tained their ground — but the meaning of both is 
precisely the same. The only differences between 
the words are these — an is no longer used in 
arithmetic or as an ordinal number — though its 
only signification is unity — nor can we use an as 
a substitute, without a noun, as we do, one — John 
is one of them. But although an cannot, in these 
applications, be used for one, the latter can always 
be used for an. 

" Hence we see that an or a is a mere adjec- 
tive ; or as I should call it, an attribute expressing 
unity, and, grammatically considered, it has no 
character which is not common to every ordinal 
number in the language." 

The above quotation shows that reading alone 
will never make a sound scholar. All Mr. Web- 
ster's book-knowledge is good in its place, but it 
has no bearing upon this question. The question 
is not from what a has been derived. Nor is the 
question, in what particular sense the old mate- 
rials were used, from which A has been made, 
or formed. The question is nothing more, nor 
less than this — how, or in what particular sense. 
is a now used in the English language ? It may 
be that Mr. Webster is correct in the history of 
this word — but we deny the correctness of his in- 
ference ; namely, that because a has been derived 
from a word which, in its own language expressed 
unity, a itself must express unity in our language ! 
W T ords, as they pass by derivation from one lan- 
guage to another, may vary in meaning as well as 
in form. Of this truth, Mr. Webster himself 
seems well aware. For, in the forty-eighth page 
of his Grammar, we find this remark in the form 
of a Note : % 

" To what unaccountable negligence shall we 
ascribe the utter misconception of the character 
and use of this word." (as) ? ' A conjunction I' 
When the word is a substitute in the German 
tongue, and never has had any other use in our 
own ! It is the same word as es in Greek." 

Again, says Mr. Webster, " May conveys the 
idea of liberty or permission ; as, He may go, if 
he will, or it denotes possibility ; as, He may 
have written to me." The same author adds in a 
note, this : 

" The primitive idea expressed by may, was 
power ; Saxon, magan, to be able." 

Mr. Webster continues — " Can, which is from 
the same radical as ken, and can, to see and 
know, has now the sense of to be able." 

Mr. W T ebster here admits that words may vary 
in meaning as they pass from one language to 
another. Hence, to show that his position with 
respect to a is tenable, he is bound to prove a 
negative ; namely, that a has not changed its ori- 
ginal, or primitive meaning. 

Now, it so happens that the noun restricted in 



100 



APPEAL. 



its application by the singular number, can not 
denote but one — and, as when nothing is desired 
but to bring this number of the noun into action, 
A is always used, grammarians, have concluded 
that A itself actually denotes the unity. The 
unity, however, is denoted by the number of the 
noun, as we trust we shall demonstrate before the 
conclusion of this chapter. But as the etymology, 
or derivation of this word, favours the received no- 
tions of unity, much exertion will be required to 
place the real character of this adjective (a), in a 
clear point of view. And we observe, first, that 
so far as Etymological authority is concerned, the 
popular doctrine is but weakly sustained. For 
even the French call the original word from which 
A has been derived, sometimes an article, and 
sometimes a numeral adjective '. Where un in 
the French, is used in the way in which we em- 
ploy A, it is called an article ! But where un is 
used in the sense in which we employ one, un is 
then called a numeral adjective. Hence we can 
show by etymological proof that A does not ex- 
press unity in English. 

Before Mr. Webster, therefore, can support his 
doctrine from the mere etymology of a, he must 
show that un is always used in the sense of one ! 1 
This he can hardly accomplish ! If un always 
means one, we ask how it happens that the acute 
philologists of France, denominate un in one ex- 
pression an article, and in another, a numeral 
adjective ? Should Mr. Webster be unable to 
answer this query, perhaps the very learned Mr. 
Cardell who has adopted Mr. Webster's exposi- 
tion, may find time to solve it " by the laws of 
matter and thought ."' 

How, it may be asked, does it happen that when 
a is used, just one is always denoted by the noun ? 
It happens because the singular form of the noun, 
acts whenever a, any, the, &c., belong to it; as, 
the man. Just one ! 

His man. Just one ! 
Any man. Just one ! 

Will it be said that the, any, and my denote 
unity ? Should it be replied that my indicates 
one — we will give the following : 

" Our man." Just one still I ! 

It is the singular number of the noun which 
indicates the unity, in each of the preceding 
instances. 

Harris remarks that " A respects the primary 
perception, and denotes individuals as unknown ;" 
as, a man is coming to us. 

Thus we see that none of the learned can agree 
as to the meaning of this adjective. 

The primary perception is a matter of infer- 
ence. Whence this idea of primary perception ? 
It arises from this — When any previous knowl- 
edge is had of the individual person, or thing, the 
is used, as, the man is coming to us. That is, 
some man distinguished, and recognised by us as 
one of whom we had a previous knowledge. And 



because the is not used before the noun, the mind 
infers that this is the first time we have seen this 
man. It is, then, the absence of the, and not the 
presence of a, which makes this perception pri- 
mary. But to put this beyond all doubts, suppose 
that no article is used ; as, six men are coming 
to us. 

Why does it here appear that these are persons 
of whom we have had no previous knowledge ? 
Or how does it happen that our perception of these 
men is primary ? Surely not because a is placed 
before the noun, for there is no a ; but because of 
the omission of the. If we say — the six men are 
coming to us, the perception is secondary. 

Having shown that it is the absence of the, and 
not the presence of a, which suggests the primary 
perception alluded to by this acute scholar, we 
shall next attempt to demonstrate that the old 
definition of the article not only fails to reach the 
character of any article, but that it fully includes 
all adjectives, all possessive nouns, and all posses- 
sive pronouns ! 

" An article is a word prefixed to- substantives to 
point them out, and to show how far their signiji. 
cation extends ; as, a garden, an eagle, the wo- 
man." (Murrax.) 

1. " A garden." 

Now, who can tell, from the use of a, what gar- 
den is meant ! ? No one. A, then, does not point 
out, and show the extent of the noun's applica- 
tion ! A, therefore, can be no article by virtue 
of the old definition of an article. 

2. " An eagle." 

Who can ascertain from an, what eagle is 
meant ! ? An is no article by virtue of the 
British doctrine ! 

3. " The woman." 

Nor does " the " point out what woman is 
meant • By what authority, then, can " the " be 
considered an article ? Is " the " an article by 
virtue of the British doctrine expressed in the 
following definition : 

" An article is a word prefixed to substantives 

tO POINT THEM OUT, and TO SHOW HOW EAR THEIR 
SIGNIFICATION EXTENDS. 

• We say, without the fear of doing an injustice 
to any one, that the is no article by this definition I 
" The " does not point out, the does not show what 
woman is meant ! 

4. " The names of the members." 

Now, it is not " the " which points out what 
names ! The noun, " names," is rendered definite 
by the mono, " of the members .'" To prove this, 
nothing is necessary but the omission of this 
mono: 

" The names." 

What names 7 Whose names ? Let the mono, 
" of the members," answer this question : 

" The names of the members !" 

Even without the, the application of the noun is 
just as definite : 



APPEAL. 



101 



H NaTnes of the members !" 

But without this defining- mono, the noun, 
" names " has no restricted application : 

" The names ." 

Let us prefix the to the noun " members :" 

5. "The names of the members." 
« If an article points out, if an article shows how 
far the noun's application extends, as the is called 
an article, the ought to tell what members these 
are, to whom allusion is made ! ! 

" The members." 

But what members ! ? Why, the members ! ! 
But what members are the members:? They 
are the members ! ! ! 

" The members of the senate .'" 

It is seen, then, that "of the. senate" is the 
article which points out, which shows how far the 
signification of this noun extend? ! ! 

"Of Me senate." 

What senate ! ? Why, let Mr. Murray's definite 
article answer ! The senate ! 

But what senate is the senate ? Why, the 
senate is the senate ! ! ! 

Reader, will you be so kind as to examine the 
following- sentence, and say whether the nouns 
are rendered definite by the, or by the monos which 
follow ? 

The xames of the members of the senate of the 
"United States." 

1. What names ? " of the members .'" 

2. What members ? " of the senate .'" 

3. What senate ? " of the United States ."' 

" An article is a word prefixed to nouns to point 
them out, and to show how far their signification 
extends ; as, a garden, an eagle, the woman." — 
(Murray.) 

To point them out, and to show how far their 
signification extends ! ! 1 Indeed. And are the 
children of our free country compelled to learn 
this sort of philosophy ? Is it possible that a 
knowledge of this same philosophy entitles a man 
to be denominated a grammarian ? Even so — 
nay more, a want of it is said to degrade him * ! 

Having proved from Mr. Murray's own exam- 
ples that no article does point out the extent of the 
noun's application, we shall next attempt to show 
that the old school grammarians, on the article, 
actually includes all the adjectives, all the posses- 
sive nouns, and all the possessive pronouns ! ! 

" An article is a word prefixed to substantives 
to point them out, and to show how far their sig- 
nification extends;" as, a right hand, the sick 
woman, John's hat, her glove ! 

1. "A right hand." 
What hand ; right hand." 

2. " The sick woman." 
What woman ? sick woman ! 

Let us now see whether a, and the will point 
out what hand, and what woman. 

1. What hand ? a hand ! I 

2. What woman ? the woman ! ! 



Classification of Articles. 

" In English there are but two articles — a and 
the. A is stjled the indefinite article — it is used 
in a vague sense to point out ; as, " a book, an 
apple." 

"A is styled the indefinite article — it is used in 
a vague sense to point out.'''' — (Murray. - ) 

1. How can any article be an indefinite word ? 

2. Can an indefinite word be an article ? Does 
not the definition of an article require the word to 
be definite ? 

" An article is a word prefixed to substantives 
to point them out, and to show how far their sig- 
nification extends ! /" 

3. How can an indefinite word be used to point 
out? 

"A is used in a vague sense to point out." 

That is, a is an indefinite word, used to define, 
to point out ! ! 

"The is called the definite article, because it 
ascertains what particular thing or things are 
meant ; as, " bring me the book, give me the 
apples." 

No one can determine from the, what book is 
meant — nor can any one ascertain from the, what 
apples are meant ! ! The book, and apples must 
be ascertained by some clause, or adjective which 
has been omitted. And the merely intimates the 
existence of a clause, or word of this description.* 
But does the by this intimation, point out the things 
themselves ! What, because D. informs three 
gentlemen, that there is a man in the world, who 
can point out to them a Mr. Shepherd, does it 
follow that D, himself points out this Mr. Shep- 
herd to these gentlemen ? Again. T. intimates 
to A. that there is a tailor in the world who will 
mend B.'s coat — therefore it follows that T. him- 
self mends B.'s coat ! ! Such an argument does 
not mend Mr. Murray's coat. 

1. Though there is no corn in the crib ! 

2. Though the fig tree beareth no fruit ! 

3. Though the grass should not grow I 

4. The ox knoweth his master ! 

5. The hand is an important part of the human 
body ! 

6. The sky is clear ! 

7. The sun has risen ! 

8. The moon has changed ! 

Now, why does not the tell us what particular 
crib is meant, and what certain Jig-tree, and what 
certain grass, and what particular ox, and what 
particular hand — are meant ! ! ? 

"A leaves the individual uncertain ; whereas, 
the article, ' the,' ascertains the indentity of the 
individual ;" as, a man was lost, the man was lost, 
— Harris's Hermes. 

"A man was lost ?" uncertain what man. 

" The man was lost." 

What man ? just as uncertain » ! 

* Book II. p. 99. 



102 



APPEAL. 



No, but says Mr. Murray with Mr. Harris, and 
ten thousand of others, it is quite certain what 
man was lost — for the points out what one ! ! 

" The man was lost !" 

But what man is the man ! ? Why, the man is 
the man ! ! 

If, however, we add some descriptive monos we 
shall soon ascertain what man was lost — 

The man who lived in the new brick three story 
house on the right hand side, was lost ! 

We think that we are within the limits of truth, 
when we say that if all that has been written 
upon the article was collected, and bound into one 
book, it would make an octavo volume of Jive 
hundred pages ! Yet in all this, it is emphatically 
taught that the ascertains, defines, points out what, 
or who is meant ! ! But we deny the soundness 
of the doctrine, and defy ingenuity, learning, or 
cunning to show that the ascertains who, or what 
is meant, by the speaker, or writer ! 

But, replies the old school grammarian, there is 
certainly a difference between a and the. True, 
but does it follow because red differs from black, 
that black is white ? 

That is, does it follow because the differs from 
a, that a is indefinite, or that the is definite ! ? 

A. 

We shall now resume the general British doc- 
trine, namely, that a is a word of number, and 
means one ; as, a man was lost. 

What, then, is the use of a ? Is it used here to 
show the absence of the ? O, no ! It is used 
expressly to prevent the noun, man, from em- 
bracing the whole human family. But, asks the 
reader, is there not just one man denoted ? O, 
yes ! What is it that signifies this unity ? unity 
is denoted, not by a, but by the singular number 
of man ! A is placed before the noun, and the 
singular number takes effect ; and thus the idea 
of unity is suggested. But does not a exert some 
kind of influence over the noun ? O, yes — Does 
a not shrink the noun to just one ? No ! the sin. 
gular number itself of the noun, fixes this nume- 
ral application. It is important that some in- 
fluence should be exerted over the noun to bring 
this number of the noun to act ! A exerts this 
influence. Why then, is not a a word of number ? 
Because a does not denote the unity ; a, like any 
other word, destroys the generic grasp, or applica- 
tion, of the noun — this being destroyed, the sin- 
gular form of the noun acts, and thus denotes 
unity ! 

What is the difference between one, and a? 
The difference is very great, very clear, and very 
interesting. One has unity within itself, which it 
expresses. The difference between a, and one 
may lead to the difference between the phrases — 
One man, and A man. 

In the first, unity is the leading idea, and is 
expressed by one itself. But, in the second, the 



kind of animal, is the leading idea ; and this is 
expressed by the noun, man. In the second, there 
is surely the notion of singleness — this, however, 
is a secondary idea, and, after all, is expressed, 
not by A, but by the number of man ! For this 
noun, by the means of its numeral form, denotes 
just one individual ! 

Let us now hear Mr. Webster from another 
part of his book' — " The definite, an, or a, being 
merely one, in its English orthography, and pre- 
cisely synonymous with it, limits a common name 
to an individual of the species."* 

*' A's sole use is to express unity, and with res- 
pect to number is the most definite word imagina- 
ble — as, a church, a ship, that is, one church, one 
ship." — Webster. 

1. A. 2. One. 

Has a even the least numeral cast ! One, how- 
ever, is all numeral. One is the very essence of 
unity . Now if this letter (a) is " the most definite 
vjord imaginable as to number,' 1 '' why will it not 
make some display of its numeral powers ? A I 

ONE. 

Mr. Webster says that these words are exactly 
synonymous ! Let us see : 

1. "A man was shot." 

What was shot? A man. (Not an ox.) 
2. One man was shot. 

How many ? One. Not two. 

" How the" position " vanishes before the test !" 

Further, 1. There was but one sheep lost ! 
2. There was but a sheep lost ! 

Are these two propositions the same ? The 
first turns upon the number lost — The second, 
upon the kind of animal ! ! There was but a 
sheep lost. That is, no other animal was lost. 

We hope the reader will have patience — it is 
our desire to exhaust this subject — which has been 
in the hands of the learned world for ages. 

" Its sole use," says Mr. Webster, " is to ex- 
press unity, and with respect to number, is the 
most definite word imaginable — as, a church, a 
ship — that is, one church, one ship." 

True, here, there is one church only. But does 
this oneness demonstrate that a is the word which 
denotes, the unity ? If we say — " the church," 
there is this same idea of unity, yet no one will 
pretend that the is synonymous with one.'.' .' 

1. A church — just one. 

2. The church — just one, 

3. One church — just on3. 

Each example speaks of the same number of 
churches ! ! Is there, then, no difference between 
A, the, and one ? 

We have already remarked the unity is ex- 
pressed by the noun itself. And we are now 

* It is not a little strange that even the learned Mr. 
Cardell, who has performed so many philological wiira- 
cles 7 asserts that a, and one, are the same meaning. 



APPEAL. 



103 



prepared to present that fact in a clear light 
And first — Every noun in the singular number, 
which is not under any qualification, is taken in 
its broadest sense ; as, man, book. 

But when a noun is acted upon by any word, 
or words, it gives up its broadest sense ; and, by 
its singular number, the noun in, and of Church 
itself, expresses unity. 

Here every church is embraced. But when we 
say, the church, there is but one church meant. 
And why ? Not because the signifies one — but 
because the noun is moved in from its natural, or 
broad extent, and continues in the singular form. 

Further — their church. 

Here is unity ! ! This idea, however, is not de- 
noted by their, but by the singular form of the 
noun, church .' And here it should be observed 
that, although a noun in its broadest sense, is in 
its singular form ; yet this singular form will not 
take effect until the noun is jogged by another 
word. And the moment this jogging takes place, 
the singular form is alive, and the noun by means 
of its singular form denotes unity. The article a 
then, as has been before said, does not express 
unity — but, like the, or any other word, a jogs the 
noun, and this jogging brings the singular form 
to life, and thereby enables the noun itself to ex- 
press unity. If it is asked whence the idea of 
unity in the following examples, the answer is from 
the nouns themselves — which being touched by 
another word, act with their singular forms, and 
denote unity itself 

1 " A man. (one man.") 
The philosophy of the thing is this : 

When a comes in contact with man, man sur- 
renders its generic character, its generic grasp. 
Having let go of the race, man is capable of ex- 
pressing unity by means of its singular form. 
This form, which never acts till the genus is given 
up, expresses a oneness, a unity, as soon as the 
race is abandoned by the noun. But, then, the 
singular form, expresses unity in that dull, obscure, 
way which renders it scarcely perceptible. And 
the idea of unity thus expressed, is always a secon- 
dary one. 

2. One man came. 

Here too the singular form of man, expresses 
unity — but the unity which it expresses, is a 
dull, obscure idea which is nearly lost by the 
lively, bold, unity, expressed by one, and made the 
main thing in the entire mono. 

1. A man came. (Not a child.) 

2. One man came. (Not three.) 

Within a day or two, a friend has placed in our 
hands a new work on English Grammar, which 
out of courtesy towards its author, we feel bound 
to notice. The following is the title page : 

Davis's Modern Practical English Grammar. 
Adapted to the American System of teaching. By 
Pardon Davis. 

By the use of " modern"' it is clearly indicated 



that Mr. Davis is the author of an Ancient English 
Grammar — and by that of " Practical," it is ren- 
dered obvious that he is the author of an Imprac- 
tical English Grammar ! We have not yet seen 
these works ! 

His practical English Grammar is adapted to the 

"American system of teaching." 

We are not familiar with the American system 
of teaching — hence, we are unable to appreciate 
the following — 

" Adapted to the American system of teaching /" 

We should be glad to learn what this system of 
instruction is — and we intend to procure the 
Ancient Practical English Grammar by Mr. Davis, 
which we presume will open the mysteries of it. 

As a child upon the shoulders of a giant, can see 
farther than the giant himself, so Mr. Davis, upon 
the head of Murray, or upon that of Bullions, can 
see farther than Murray, or Bullions ! This ele- 
vation has enabled him to discover that the Eng- 
lish language has thirty, or forty articles ! 

Under page 12, he defines an Article : 

" ARTICLE." 

All words in the English language which are 
placed before nouns merely to point them out, or 
to limit the extent of their application, are arti- 
cles." Pardon Davis. 

We can not comprehend the words, — " merely 
to point them out." 

Does this part of the definition mean merely to 
distinguish nouns from other words ? 

If so, we feel confident that there is not even 
one word in the English language, which can be 
called an article ! 

What ! Has our language a word which is used 
merely to show that the word with which it is 
joined, is not a verb, not a preposition, not a con- 
junction, but a noun ! ! 

A book, the man. 

Is a used merely to show that book is a noun ! ? 
Is the used merely to establish the fact that man 
is a noun ! ? 

Why should a language have thirty, or forty 
words merely to show that the words with which 
they stand in juxtaposition, are nouns ! ? Would 
not one word answer this simple purpose ? The 
word, a, is an article because it is used merely to 
show that the word with which it is joined, is a 
noun ! If the object is merely to show that the 
word is a noun, why not use a in every instance 
when it becomes important to designate the fact 
that this, or that word is a noun ! ? 

Articles are of two kinds, definite and inde- 
finite. — Pardon Davis. 

1. Definite articles are those which point out or 
designate the noun; as, the, this, that, those, for- 
mer, latter. — Pardon Davis. 

2. Indefinite articles are those which limit the 
extent of the noun's application ; as, a, an, one, 
any, ten, all, many. — Pardon Davis. 



104 



APPEAL. 



Here we find a, an, &c. are indefinite articles 
because they limit 2 ? 

3. Numeral articles are either cardinal ; as, one, 
two, three ; or ordinal ; -as, first, second, third : — 
the former are indefinite, the latter, definite. — 
Pardon Davis. 

" One man was lost." One is an indefinite 
numeral article ! ! ! 

" Henry is the first man." First is a definite 
ordinal numeral article ! ! 

Articles are sometimes assisted by other arti- 
cles ; as, A hundred men ; and sometimes by ad- 
verbs ; as so many men. Pardon Davis. 

Hundred is an indefinite numeral article ; and 
a is an indefinite assistant article ! ! ! 

Does not so bear the same relation to many that a 
docs to hundred ? Why, then, is not so an article ! ? 

But why even should a, and the be denominated 
articles ? 

Article. (Latin, articulus, a joint.) 

1. Article, an article of agreement, or other 
things which serve to connect. 

As this word is derived from articulus, a joint, 
its application to an instrument of writing-, is 
sanctioned by its etymology : the joint connects 
the two parts of the limb : and the instrument of 
writing connects the parties. Hence this instru- 
ment may be called an article. The instrument 
of writing is the joint between the two parties. 

This word is also properly applied to a clause ; 
for a clause of an instrument- of writing, serves to 
connect what precedes it, and what follows it. 
Here we have the idea of the joint : articulus, a 
joint. But is there any thing in the import of the 
Latin, articulus, which justifies the application of 
the word, article, to a, an, and the ? Do these 
words resemble joints ? Had the old school 
grammarians applied the name, article, to the 
words which they call verbs, conjunctions, or 
prepositions, we should feel bound to admit the 
legitimacy of their applications. In the verb, 
conjunction, and preposition, there may be seen a 
connective character. This may be seen by 
omitting them in the following instances : 

1. John loves Sarah. John Sarah. 

2. The arms of John. Arms John. 

3. I called John, for I wanted him. I called 
John, I wanted him. 

1. As the name of a clause, in an instrument of 
writing, &c, "article" must be considered a 
word. But, as the name of a, an, and the, 
"article" can not be considered a word any 
more than ol, dreed, or any other unmeaning 
combination of letters, formed directly from the 
alphabet l The word, article, in relation to a, the, 
one, first, 8$c, is without meaning ! 

Under page 14, Mr. Davis defines an Adjective: 

An adjective is a word which expresses or 

alludes to some quality or inherent property of the 

thing represented by the noun : as, A wise man, 

A straight line. Pardon Davis. 



It does not require much acuteness to see that 
Mr. Davis has increased the family of articles, 
because, in his judgment, the words which he has 
added to this family, do not fall under his favorite 
definition of an adjective. Nor does it require 
much depth in metaphysics to see that the very 
words which he has added to this family of articles 
are clearly embraced by his definition of an 
adjective ! 

Let us first ascertain what a quality is : 

A quality — that which belongs to a substance, 
or can be predicated of it. — Webster. 

A quality is that which can not exist in, and of 
itself, but must have some subject to sustain it ; as, 
a square block, a black cloth. 

The destruction of the block would result in the 
destruction of the quality which is here denomi- 
nated square. The block, then, is the subject 
which sustains this quality. In the same way, the 
cloth is the subject which sustains the quality, 
denominated black. 

Watts, who has written much upon qualities, 
says — 

" Motion, shape, quantity, weight, &c, are 
properties of bodies, and that wit, folly, love, doubt- 
ing, judging, &c., are qualities of the mind." 

A mode or quality is that property which can 
not exist in, and of itself, but is always esteemed 
as belonging to, and subsisting by, the help of 
some substance which, for this reason, is called 
its subject. — Watts. 

"One book," " Three books." 

1. As the unity which is expressed by " one," 
belongs to the book, and as it could not exist with- 
out the book, or some equivalent subject, it is a 
quality. And, as this unity is a quality, one is an 
adjective l ! 

" Three" denotes a quality — hence three is an 
adjective!! Will it be said that three does not 
express a quality ? Three expresses three units 
which cannot exist without a subject. A unit be- 
longs to each book — hence three is an adjective ! 

" A hundred men." 

The word, hundred, expresses a hundred units, 
a hundred ones, which belong to the men. One 
of the hundred units belongs to each of the hun- 
dred men. Hence hundred is an adjective ! 
" Henry is the first boy whom I saw." 

The priority which belongs to the boy, and 
which is here expressed by the word, first, is a 
quality. Hence the article, first, is an adjective! ! 
Can there be a doubt upon this point ? That 
there can be no first, where there is not something 
to be first, is obvious. Priority can not exist 
alone — it must have a subject. Has priority ever 
been seen without a subject? Do men talk about 
the first — and yet have nothing to which priority 
belongs ! ? 

" An adjective is a word which expresses or 



APPEAL. 



105 



alludes to some quality or inherent property of the 
thing represented by the noun ; as, 

1. One book. 4. Many apples. 

2. Thirty pens. 5. Each knife. 

3. A hundred men. 6. Every pupil. 

" Each' 1 ' 1 denotes the quality of individuality 
which in this case, belongs to the knife. 

" Many " expresses the quality of a great num- 
ber of units, which in this instance belong to the 
pens. 

" Every " expresses the quality of individuality 
which in this place, belongs to each pupil. 

Each. But each what ? Individuality of what ? 
Individuality of each knife. If a knife is singled 
out as an individual object, or thing, does not the 
individuality thus produced, pertain to the knife ? 
Could the individuality of a knife exist without a 
knife ! ! ! Remember that whatever can not exist 
without a subject, is a quality ! 

But this definition of an adjective not only re- 
calls all the words which Mr. Davis has added to 
the family of articles, but it really makes almost 
every word in a sentence an adjective. 

" The statement is accurately made." 

11 Statement " is a noun, and, as " accurately " 
expresses a quality which belongs to the statement, 
accurately is an adjective ! 1 1 

If the statement is made accurately, does not the 
accuracy with which it is made belong to it ! ? 
" The line is made crookedly" 

" Crookedly'''' denotes a quality — and, if you 
examine the line you will see this very quality in 
the line itself. 



" Line" is a noun, and represents the thing to 
which this quality belongs — hence the adverb 
crookedly is an adjective ! ! ! 

" John is a man of great strength" 

Strength expresses a quality which belongs to 
man. Hence this common noun is an ad- 
jective ! ! ! 

" James runs." 

" Runs " denotes an action — and, as an action 
can not exist independent of a subject, an agent, it 
is a quality. And, as an adjective is a word that 
expresses a quality which belongs to the thing re- 
presented by the noun, the verb, runs, is an ad- 
jective ! ! ! Does not this definition of an adjec- 
tive work wonders ! ? 

The following is the first sentence in the Intro- 
duction of this marvellous book : 

Language in its most comprehensive sense, is 
the medium of communication of ideas practised 
by all animal nature." 

What is practised by all animal nature ? 

Answer. Medium ! ! • 

Perhaps the author would say that practised re- 
fers to communication. 



But as men neither practise a communication, 
nor a medium, one is no better than the other I 
Such however, is the construction of this sentence, 
that practised must belong to medium. 

It is somewhat surprising that Mr. Davis, who 
abounds in articles, could not afford one before 
communication ! 

"Of communication of ideas." 

Of the communication of ideas ! 

" Practised by all animal nature." 

What ! Can a writer substitute the charact- 
eristics of the agents for the agents themselves ! ? 

Can human nature be substituted for human 
beings in the following ? 

This is the greatest work which has ever been 
produced by human nature 1 ! 

The new system as well as the nature of a, an 
and the, makes articles adjectives. [Book II. 
page 97.] 



CHAPTER XX. 

THE INTERJECTION. 

An interjection is a word used to express 
some passion, or emotion of the mind ; as, Oh ! 
Murray. 

2. An interjection is a word that is uttered 
merely to indicate some strong, or sudden emotion 
of the mind; as, Oh ! alas ! Goold Brown. 

3. An interjection is a word which expresses 
some emotion of the speaker ; as, Oh ! what a 
sight is here ! Well done ! Peter Bullions. 

4. An interjection is a word used to express 
sudden emotion. John Frost. 

An interjection is a word used to express some 
passion, or emotion of mind. Murray. 

1. Is John mad ?" 

Why is not the adjective, mad, an interjec- 
tion 1 ? Does not this adjective express a. passion, 
an emotion I ? 

2. " Henry was in a rage." 

Does not the common noun, rage, express a 
passion, an emotion .' ! ? 

3. " James was greatly frightened." 

Why is not the perfect participle, frightened, an 
interjection ! ! ? 

4. " Henry felt a sudden terror." 

Does not terror express a passion, an emotion 
of the mind ! ! ? Why, then, is not this common 
noun an interjection ! 

5. " The man manifested great frenzy " 
Yet the word, frenzy, is not an interjection ! ! 

6. " Henry was delighted." 

Yet delighted is not an interjection ! • 

7. " The brothers who manifested great grief 
on their separation, expressed great joy on their 
return to each other's arms." 



106 



APPEAL. 



Yet, grief, and joy are not interjections, but 
common nouns!!! 

What is the meaning of the word, interjection ? 
This word signifies thrown in between — or rather, 
the act of throwing in between. It is derived from 
the Latin, interjacio. It is made primarily from 
inter, between, and jacio, to throw. 

This word, like preposition, is not applicable to 
things. The word, interjection, means an action — 
hence its application to words is improper. 

" Interjection, throwing in between." This 
word is used by the makers ; and menders of the 
old theory of English Grammar, as the class name 
of the words which express passion, emotion ! ! 
What analogy is there between the place which 
is called between, and passion, emotion ! ! ? Pas- 
sion, emotion, is the characteristic of the words — 
yet the class name of these words signifies thrown 
in between! ! ! If this is not writing with a. fork, 
and with the hilt instead of the tines, we are in- 
competent judges ! What ! the man's name is 
Jordan — and he puts upon his door, Nathans ! ! 
The box contains tea — but it is marked Sugar ! ! 
The words denote passion, emotion — but they are 
labeled, Interjection ! '. ! Surely this is a consis- 
tency ! 

Will the world continue to use a theory of 
which this is a fair sample ? 

" An interjection is a word used to express pas- 
sion, or emotion .'" How, by what means ? By 
the name character, by the name relation, of these 
words to the passion, and emotion ! If, then, the 
interjections are the names of passion, and emo- 
tion, are they not nouns ? And, if they are not 
the names of passion, and emotion, how, — yes, 
how — can they express passion, and emotion! ! ! ? 

THE SUBSTITUTE. 

The Interjection Denomination is a small 
class of intensive trunk signs which reject all 
branch words, and express individually, the 
meaning of an entire sentence, in the most hurried, 
and impressive manner ; as, 

1. " O that my grief was thoroughly weighed, 
and my calamities laid together in the balance, for 
the arrows of the Almighty are within me." 

This is the reply of Job to those who charged 
him with sin, folly, and impatience. 

1. O that my grief was thoroughly weighed, — 
That is, / most heartily wish that my grief was 

thoroughly weighed, &c. 

Here, O is synonymous with the sentence, 2" 
most heartily wish, 

2. What, should Milo hate Clodus, the flower of 
his glory ? 

Here, Cicero, is speaking for Milo ; and by the 
use of what, Cicero declares as follows, 

It is too unnatural to be believed. 

3. "Behold, my servants shall eat ; but ye shall 
suffer hunger." 



By the use of behold, the speaker expresses in 
the most hurried and impressive manner, the 
following sentiment : 

Mark ye well this strange thing. 

Then follows the strange thing : 

My servants shall eat ; but ye shall surfer 
hunger ; my servants shall drink j but ye shall 
abide thirst." 

Behold, however, does not always belong to the 
Interjection denomination. It is often a member 
of the Verb denomination ; as, 

1. "Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow 
not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns ; 
yet your heavenly father feedeth them." 

There is the same sentiment, however, ex- 
pressed by this behold, which is expressed by that 
in the other sentence. But, as behold is here a 
mere branch word, it can not be referred to the 
Interjection denomination. Behold, here is 
appropriated to fowls, a. trunk word in the mono. 

1. " Behold, my servants shall eat," &c. 

2. "Behold ye the fowls of the air." 

Do ) T ou see that there is a comma after behold 
in the first ? And do you observe that there is no 
comma after behold, in the second ? 

Reflect upon this too : in the first, the speaker 
does not say, behold my servants — but behold, my 
servants shall eat, Sfc. 

Whereas, in the second, he says, behold ye the 
fowls. 

3. " wretched man that I am, who shall 
deliver me from the body of this death ? 

Here by the use of O, Paul expresses the follow- 
ing sentiment : 

lam so wretched that no power can deliver me. 

4. "O wretched prince." 

5. " O cruel reverse of fortune." 

6. " O father Micipsa." 

7. O death, where is thy sting ? 

8. O grave, where is thy victory ? 

9. "And peace, O virtue, peace is all thy own. 
Here the speaker declares by the use of O, that 

he is greatly delighted : 

1. I am so highly delighted that peace attends 
nothing but virtue. 

10. '* My friend, you must submit to my orders." 
"Pish. Your orders !" 

Here, by the use of pish, the speaker expresses 
the following sentiment : 

/ look upon you and your orders with superla- 
tive contempt ! 

11. Hush. 

That is, be thou silent. 



Strange as it may appear, many, and indeed, 
nearly all philologists have virtually said tush, and 
pish, in relation to the whole class of interjections. 
Even Horne Tooke treats this part of speech with 
contempt. They generally take the ground that 



APPEAL. 



107 



interjections are not worthy of a place in artificial 
language. Home Tooke treats them as illegiti- 
mate branches of refined speech, because he did 
not see in what way they could aid him in his 
attempt to gnash his teeth at his political foes. 
Murray found them too knotty for the edge of his 
knife ; and his simplifiers have hitherto considered 
them too self-willed to yield to any authority which 
they could exercise over them. But they certainly 
fall under the following definition of words: 

Words are articulate sounds used by common 
consent as the signs of our ideas ! ! — Murray. 

We articulate, spell, and write these words — yet 
grammarians undertake to reject them as the Ian- 
guage of the brutes 

Are not these signs used by common consent ? 
Where is there a nation which docs not use them ? 
Were not these brute signs used by Greece ? 

These words may be beastly ; but they are com- 
prehensive, and forcible. They are the life of ora- 
tory — each is a/i/ZZ sentence — and, like the electric 
shock, each produces an instantaneous impression. 
The interjections, not language ! They are 
the refinement of language ! And, as the grains 
of mica bedizzen the sands of the celebrated 
Paetolus, so the interjections of speech, enrich the 
productions of the poets, and orators of every age, 
and nation. 

But it is something in favor of this class of 
words, that they who attempt to cut them off from 
regular speech, betray, in their very act of excision, 
a censurable want of grammatical knowledge. 
Murray's judgment against them, begins as 
follows, 

"Besides these, several others, frequently in the 
mouths of the multitude, might be enumerated. 

Now, whether the interjections deserve a place 
in artificial language, or not, is a subject on which 
there may be different opinions. But I think that 
all will agree, that the words, besides, and these, 
deserve no place in the preceding sentence ! 

Several others frequently in the mouths of the 
multitude, might be enumerated. [Besides these .'] 
Goold Brown, who follows in the wake of Mr. 
Murray in almost every thing connected with 
language, repeats Mr. Murray's errors, both in 
grammar, and sentiments : 

" Besides these, there are several others too 
often heard, which are unworthy to be considered 
as parts of a cultivated language." — G. B.'s 
Grammar. 



CHAPTER XXI. 



The third part of grammar is Syntax, which 
treats of the agreement, and construction of words 
in a sentence. Murray. 

Syntax treats of the relation, agreement, govern, 
tnent, and arrangement, of words in sentences. 
Goold Brown. 



Syntax is that part of grammar which treats 
of the proper arrangement, and connection of 
words in a sentence. Peter Bullions. 

Syntax treats of the agreement, government, 
and proper arrangement of words and sentences. 

Comly. 
Syntax treats of sentences. John S. Hart. 
W r e must ask the reader to examine with some 
degree of care, the above definitions of Syntax. 
We must invite him to compare one with another. 
Mr. Comly says that, 

" Syntax treats of the agreement, government, 
and proper arrangement of words and sentences." 
That is, Syntax treats of the proper agreement 
of words, and the proper agreement of sentences ! 
The proper government of words, and the proper 
government of sentences ! 1 

The third part of grammar is Syntax, which 
treats of the agreement and construction of words 
in a sentence. Murray. 

Mr. Comly has substituted and for in. 
Goold Brown says, 

"Syntax treats of the relation, agreement, 
government, and arrangement, of words in a sen- 
tence." 

But does not every grammarian know that 
Syntax is the part of grammar, which contains 
the Rules that are necessary to enable one to 
construct sentences with propriety ? How, then, 
can a definition of a sentence form a legitimate 
part of Syntax .' 

Under the same page on which Syntax is de- 
fined, we find a studied definition of a sentence. 

A sentence is an assemblage of words, making 
complete sense, and always containing a nomina- 
tive and a verb. Goold Brown. 

Does the definition of a sentence fall under re- 
lation of words — agreement of words — govern- 
ment of words — or arrangement of words ! ? 

In what way the subject of a sentence can be 
discussed under the head of Syntax, is a mystery 
to us • 

Mr. Brown continues — 

" Sentences are of two kinds, simple and com- 
pound." 

But what has the division of a sentence into 
simple, and compound, to do with Syntax which, 
according to Mr. Brown, is confined to the relation 
agreement, government, and arrangement of 
words ! ? 

But Mr. Brown is not yet willing to return to 
Syntax — he leaves a sentence for a clause : 

" A clause is a subdivision of a compound 
sentence." Nor will he yet return : 

" A phrase is two or more words which express 
some relation of ideas without affirmation or ne- 
gation 1 1 " 

" Is John here," then, is a phrase ! Here are 
two, or more words which express some relation 
without affirmation or negation ! .' 



108 



APPEAL. 



In a Grammar, compiled by Pardon Davis, we 
find the following definition of Syntax — 

" Syntax teaches the correct construction of 
sentences, and the arrangement of words in form- 
ing them." 

The following Syntax Rules are from Goold 
Brown's Grammar. 



Articles relate to nouns which they limit. 
Goold Brown. 

Does this rule give any direction for the con- 
struction of a sentence ! ? Indeed is the paragraph 
a rule ? It is a mere statement which, was it 
even true, could afford no aid in the formation of a 
sentence. 

" Articles relate to the nouns which they limit." 

Well, this is a wonderful affair ! Without this 
Rule some people might think that articles do not 
relate to the nouns which they limit ! ! ! 

Could any one imagine that an article can limit 
a noun without relating to it ! ? 

RULE II. 

A noun or pronoun which is the subject of a 
verb, must be in the nominative case. Goold 
Brown. 

That is, a noun or pronoun which is in the 
nominative case to a verb, must be in the nomi- 
native case ! ! 

In other words. — A man, or a woman who is in 
a river, must be in water ! 1 ! 

Can a noun, or pronoun be the subject of any 
thing but a verb ? 

The rule implies that when a noun, or pronoun 
is the subject of a preposition, an adjective, an ad- 
verb, &c, it is not in the nominative case ! ! 

But why is this paragraph placed under the 
head of Syntax ? Is it a guide in the use of 
the English language ! ? It is any thing but a 
rule. We call on Mr. Brown for instances of 
false English, which violate this rule ! Can he 
produce them ! ? No. 



A noun, or a personal pronoun, used to explain 
a preceding noun or pronoun, is put, by apposition, 
in the same case. Goold Brown. 

Where is the false English which violates this 
Rule ! ? " Syntax is the part of grammar, which 
teaches us to form sentences from words with 
propriety." And is this statement a part of 
Syntax ! ? 

But let us put this statement to the test : 

1. "I am John whom you call." 

The noun, John, is used to explain who I 
am — but is John put by apposition with II? 

2. " I Paul wrote." 

That is, I who am Paul, wrote. I is in the 
nominative case to wrote — but Paul is in the 
nominative after am '. I ! 



Are not who, and am understood ? What does 
Mr. Brown himself say? 

Words that are omitted by ellipsis, and that 
are necessarily understood, in order to complete 
the construction, must be supplied in parsing. 
Goold Brown. 

Let Mr. Brown show that, " I who am Paul," 
is not the true construction, if he can ! 

We say that no instance can be found in an 
English sentence, in which a noun, or a pronoun, is 
put by apposition into the same case with the noun, 
or pronoun which is explained ! This rule, then, 
contemplates what does not exist. 

RULE IV. 

Adjectives relate to nouns, or pronouns. 

Goold Brown. 

Will this statement which is improperly called 
a Rule, show a man how to use adjectives ? ! 

We should be glad to review Mr. Brown's 
Rules in the order in which he has presented 
them. But we cannot be gratified. We have 
very little more space — and this we must devote 
to the discussion of his Ninth Rule which we 
have promised to demonstrate to be without a 
sound foundation. 

RULE IX. 

" A verb must agree with its subject or nomi- 
native in person and number.'''' 

In a preceding chapter, we promised to demon- 
strate that a verb must not agree with its nomi- 
native in person, and number. 

" The verb agrees with its nominative case in 
number and person" 

Truth is a conformity of what is signified, to 
the sign used — or truth is the agreement between 
the thing denoted, and the sign that denotes it. 
Knowledge is the apprehension of truth ; or, 
knowledge is the apprehension of the agieement 
between the sign, and the thing signified. Hence, 
the degree of knowledge which one may acquire 
in studying any art or science, depends upon the 
degree of truth, which the art, or science may 
comprise. We say, (and we pledge ourselves to 
sustain the position) that there is no agreement 
between the old theory of English Grammar, 
and the grammatical principles of the English 
language — hence we contend that the theory is 
not true — and, as knowledge is the apprehension 
of truth, grammatical knowledge may be acquired 
as well without, as with, the aid of this system. 
A person, therefore, may have taught grammar 
for years, and still have no more true knowledge 
of this science than one who has never learned the 
defective definitions of the parts of speech, the 
blind rules, and ill founded remarks, which con 
stitute the old Grammars on English philology. 

We will fancy that two persons are now under 
an examination with a view to ascertain whether 
one has more grammatical knowledge than the 



APPEAL. 



109 



other. We will suppose that one has been a 
teacher of English grammar for years ; and that 
the other has never undertaken even to acquire a 
knowledge of it by any system whatever. For 
the sake of distinction in conducting this examina- 
tion, we will call the teacher R., and the other 
person S. 

Now, we readily grant that R. has more names 
than S. But as names without ideas are a mere 
nothing, S. has as much real knowledge of this 
science as R., S. can tell the connection of the 
words in the majority of sentences without tech- 
nical terms ; and R. can do no more with them. 
What advantage, then, has R. over S. ? R. can 
tell what he knows in technical language which 
one half of the people can not understand — S. is 
confined to plain terms, which all readily compre- 
hend. 

For example — "Martin Roche will deliver a 
lecture on Friday evening next, the 19th instant, 
in the Franklin Institute, on the subject of English 
Grammar, embracing a comparative review of 
Murray's principles, and those of Mr. James 
Brown's grammar, with a view to eligibility !" 

What man, who can read English, cannot un- 
derstand what Mr. Roche intends to say ? And 
what man who can write English, could not have 
accomplished the intended object with as much 
brevity, and precision as this lecturer who has 
taught English grammar by the old system for 
twenty years ! 

A Specimen of R.'s manner of Parsing. 

" On, a preposition belonging to evening. 
Friday, an adjective belonging to evening, 
evening, a noun, common. 
next," an adjective belonging to evening. 

&'s manner. 

" On, is a word making sense with evening. 
Friday, is a word making sense with evening, 
evening, is the principal word in the syllabane. 
next," is a word making sense with evening. 

We again ask, what particular advantage has 
the mode of R. over that of S. ? S. ascertains, 
and gives the true connection of the words — and 
R. does nothing more. So far, therefore, as a 
capacity to connect the words of a sentence, con- 
stitutes a grammarian, S. is as much a gramma- 
rian as R. 

But it may be said, that R. can use our lan- 
guage with more grammatical propriety than S. 
In reply to this, we will venture to say, that S. 
cannot use it with more impropriety than R. has 
done in the above advertisement. It is from ex- 
ample that one learns true, from false English — 
hence a person may use our language with as 
much propriety without technical grammar as he 
can with it. Has any real knowledge of the 
relation which exists between the verb and its 
subject, ever been acquired by the following rule ? 



" The verb agrees with its nominative case in 
number and person." 

This rule is not true — because there is no con- 
formity — or in other words, there is not that 
agreement between the rule, and the relation 
existing between the verb, and its subject, which 
is actually necessary to render the rule true. The 
British grammarians have spent years to illustrate 
this rule which has no sort of capacity to be ap- 
plied to the peculiar relation that the verb has 
with its subject. Examples have been introduced 
— but these not only do not illustrate the adaptation 
of the rule, but they show the very want of the 
fitness of the Rule. The instances which have 
been used to illustrate the truth of this rule have 
a tendency to show the true, from false, English. 
If, then, these examples do not illustrate the rule, 
but serve to show correct English only, they are 
much more useful without the rule than with it. 
That the rule is ineffectual is manifest from the 
great number of exercises which the pupil must 
correct before he can use the verb with construe- 
tive propriety. Was the rule true, a mere illus- 
tration of its truth, would enable one to use the 
verb in its proper subjective form — but as it is 
false, good, and bad English must be held in con- 
trast before the eyes of the student for a long time, 
to enable him to select that modification of the 
verb, which suits its particular subject. Thus it 
is clear that one may acquire as much gram- 
matical skill of our language without the aid of the 
old system as he can with its aid. 

incorrect. correct. 

I writes. I write. 

We am. We are. 

He runnest. He runs. 

They has. They have. 

" The verb must agree with its nominative case 
in number and person ; as, I run, we run, you 
run, they run." 

But what is an agreement ? An agreement is a 
likeness in one, or more properties. Hence, if 
two things agree, they are alike in the properties, 
or particulars in which they agree. Thus, D. says 
to B., my coat agrees with yours in color. Now, 
if D's coat is black, and B.'s red, can it be said 
that they agree in color ? They must both have 
the same color before they can agree in color ? 
It is said the verb agrees in number, and person 
with its nominative case. 

The terms of this rule require that the verb 
should have number and person — for, in these par- 
ticulars it is said to agree with its subject. Now, 
if we show that the verb has neither number, nor 
person, we trust that we shall thereby demonstrate 
that the verb can no more agree with its nominative 
case in number and person, than a red coat can 
agree with a black one in color ! We shall here 
turn our attention to the manner in which the 
British grammarians make out the existence of the 
number, and person of the verb. 



110 



APPEAL. 



" Section 2. — Of Number and Person" 

Verbs have two numbers, the singular and 
plural ; as, I run,, we run. — Murray. 

Well, what about number and person ? — "Why, 
" verbs have number and person !" But this is 
not talking about number, and person ; this is 
talking about verbs! Had the learned author 
Baid — 

" Section 2.-0/ Verbs;' 

one would have been prepared for a discussion of 
the verb — but as he commences a new section 
under a new title, the reader little expects that the 
things advertised by this new title, will be set 
aside, and the verb resumed for further investi- 
gation. 

" Verbs have two numbers, the singular, and the 
plural !" Observe the manner in which Mr. 
Murray has distinguished these two numbers — 
"As, I run, we run !" 

What, we pray to be informed, can be the 
difference between these two runs ? Yes — first 
run is singular — and, secondly, without the least 
change, this same run becomes plural ! It can 
be clearly understood that / is singular, and that 
we is plural — but in what way, run is both singular, 
and plural, is the very thing which constitutes 
Mr. Murray's bad point — and which he in the 
introduction of this subject labors to evade. 

In speaking of the number of nouns, the author 
proceeds thus : 

" OF NUMBER." 

" Number is the consideration of an object, as 
one or more." 

" Nouns have two numbers, the singular, and 
the plural." 

" The singular number expresses but one thing ; 
as, a chair, a table." 

" The plural number signifies more objects than 
one ; as, chairs, tables." 

Here we find that the author shows his love of 
method — and whenever he is seen to leave this, 
depend upon it all is not right. 

But mark the difference in the two illustrations — 
" chair " illustrates the singular number of a 
noun — yet not the plural ; for it requires chairs 
to illustrate the plural. How very different are the 
two numbers of the verb illustrated — indeed, in- 
deed — "run" is singular, and "run" is plural ! 
No variation here — the same animal, as we have 
said in another chapter, may be a pig, or a 
puppy — yes, and after all, there is neither one, nor 
the other — for the verb has neither a singular, nor 
a plural number. The learner is informed that — 

" Number is the consideration of an object, as 
one or more." 

But is there any such property as a " conside- 
ration" about the verb, run ? 



No one can say from this verb, how many, or 
how few, perform the act of running ! Number, 
therefore, belongs not to the verbs, but to nouns, 
and pronouns. But, we are told that the number 
of actors infuses itself into the action itself— 
hence the sign, or name of the action, is rendered 
singular, or plural, according to the number of 
agents or actors. But this doctrine we have re- 
futed in another chapter. 

This doctrine is advanced by Mr. Kirkham, 
and others who are no less positive in the denial 
of a true doctrine than logical, and brilliant in 
the support of a false one. 

" Person," say they, " strictly speaking, " is a 
quality that belongs not to verbs, but to nouns, 
and pronouns. We say, however, that the verb 
must agree with its nominative in person as well 
as in number ; that is, the verb must be spelled 
and spoken in such a manner, as to correspond 
with the first, second, or third person of the noun 
or pronoun which is nominative." 

Now, the very reverse of Mr. Kirkham's posi- 
tion, happens to be the truth — for surely verbs 
have person, although they have no number. The 
person of a verb is that form, or inflection which 
the person of the nominative case gives the verb; 
as, thou write-si. She write-s. 

Thou, is of the second person — and it is the 
second person of thou, which gives the verb, 
write, the st form. And this form being produced 
by the person, and not by the number of thou, 
must be called person. 

She, has a capacity for showing that the person 
alluded to is spoken of- — this capacity is the person 
of the word — now, the person of she, gives write 
the s termination — and this termination is the 
person of the word. If, then, we are asked to 
show the person of a verb, we are ready to make 
the exhibition. The following terminations are 

the PERSONS of VERBS T, ST, S, ES, TH. 

These variations are produced, not by the num- 
ber of the nominative, but by the person — were 
these produced by the number of the verb's sub- 
ject, they would bear a numeral character — hence 
the verb would have number — but no person. 

Formerly, our verbs received a form from the 
number of the plural subject — but not from the 
number of the singular — formerly, therefore, verbs 
had number; hence the time once was when 
verbs in English, possessed both number, and 
person — yet not both at the same time. For such 
is the genius of the relation between the verb, 
and its subject, that where the person of the sub- 
ject exerts any influence over the verb, the num- 
ber of the subject ceases to act ; as, I am, thou 
art, he is. 

Here the number of each subject, is singular — 
yet we find three variations in the verb, he. 
Whence these variations ? Surely not from the 



APPEAL. 



Ill 



singular number of the three subjects — but from 
the three different persons of these subjects. We 
find am, first in this form, be. And what power 
is it which brings am out of this radical form ? 
Surely it is not the singular number of I : for, if 
it was the singular number which turns " be" into 
am, thou, or he would perform this work of variation, 
for both have the singular number with which to 
accomplish it. Yet — Thou am, or he am, will 
hardly do ! The first person alone, performs this 
act of inflection : as, I am. 

Hence it is seen that am is the personal form 
of BE. 

Having brought am out of be through the 
agency of the first person, let us next ascertain 
what brings art out of am. This change is per- 
formed by the person of thou — the very person of 
thou, not thou itself, does this work of verbal de- 
flection. But may it not be said that thou itself is 
the workman, and uses its person as one of its 
tools with which to do this work ? O, no, but, if 
this strange figure must be introduced, let it be 
properly applied — the person, then, is the mechanic 
himself, and " thou" is the mere house in which 
he lives, or perhaps, the stage, or scaffolding upon 
which he stands to work, or operate upon the verb, 
am — I am, thou art. 

As to is — this verb is made from art by the 
person which resides in he, the subject of the verb. 
How, then, we ask, does it appear that verbs have 
no person ? 

Says Mr. Murray, "the plural termination in 
en, as they loven, they weren, formerly in use, is 
laid aside, and has long been obsolete." 

Eut does Mr. Murray say that the personal 
terminations have long, or ever been laid aside ? 
O, no — He that declares that verbs have no 
person, is one who has undertaken to mend Mr. 
Murray. 

We shall now resume the subject of am. When 
this subject was before under consideration,we think 
that we established our principal position ; namely, 
am is brought out of be, not by the number of its 
subject, but by the person ; as, I am. 

This pronoun has a capacity which enables it to 
distinguish myself from all others — this capacity, 
which, of course, custom has given to' I, is called 
first person. Ah ! says the reader, if this work 
of inflecting the verb, is done by the first person 
of the subject, then " we am" is good. How so ? 
Because there resides in the pronoun, " we," this 
same first person which is found in J — But it is 
now night with this same first person — as we 
read, when the night cometh, no man can work, 
we have no reason to expect any thing from the 
hands of this person until the dawn of day » Ah ! 
when will that be ? As soon as you will erect his 
scaffold. What is his scaffold ? His scaffold is 
1—we, is his sleeping chamber, in which he does 
no work. But i, as we before observed, is his 
6caffold, or stage upon which he stands while 



turning be into am. And, if you take away his 
scaffolding, how can he work ? This being away, 
and he being no rake, he returns to we, retires 
and slmnbers upon the very genius of our lan- 
guage as his pillow. For, so far as regards the 
subject, and the verb, it is the plural number 
which works out the inflections of the verb when 
the person of the subject slumbers under the same 
roof; as, we are, yc are, they are. 

It seems, then, that are is a numeral form. We 
admit it. Some verbs, then, have number ? No — 
no verbs have number. There is one verb which 
has number ! Which ? be. Are is the numeral 
inflection of be. 

But does not the plural number operate upon 
any other verb ? 

This number takes effect only when brought in 
contact, or connection with be. Formerly, as we 
have before shown, the plural number exerted an 
influence in changing verbs in general ; as, they 
loven. 

But the powers of the number, are now not felt 
by any verb except by the verb be. That he is 
turned into are by the number of we, is clear ! 

Let us next show how it is that be is changed 
to are, when ye, you, or they stands as the 
cordictive pronouns. This, again, is the result of 
the same plural number — for the plural number 
which is in we, is the same which is in ye, you, 
and they— they turned is into are. Therefore we 
find that, although the persons of these three 
cordictive pronouns, are different, yet the verb 
retains the same form with each subject ; as, we 
are, ye, or you are, they are. 

If, however, the person of the plural subject had 
any power over the form of the verb, each differ- 
ent person must give a new modification. But 
the person does not act when the subject is plural 
— hence we find that the verb has the same form 
as long as the subject remains plural ; as, we are, 
you are, they are. 

When the cordictive trunk word becomes sin. 
gular, the number ceases to act, and the person 
revives — hence each different person of the singu- 
lar cordictive trunk word, gives the verb a new 
form ; as, I am, thou art, he is. 

From what has been said upon the number, and 
person of verbs, it clearly appears that no verb 
can have both number, and person at the same 
time. For, when the subject is singular, the per. 
son gives the verb its form — and when it is plural, 
the number gives the verb its form. The rule, 
then, which says that, 

" The verb must agree with its nominative case 
in number, and person," is wrong — The rule 
should be thus — 



The verb agrees with its singular subject, in 
person ; as, I am, thou art % he is. 



112 



APPEAL. 



The verb agrees with its plural subject, in 
number ; as, we are, ye are, they are. 

But, to what extent will our language admit the 
application of these rules ? These rules cannot 
be applied beyond the verb, be. Thus every other 
verb in the language, is left ruleless. To correct 
the above rules, and state them in close phrase- 
ology, the two should be made into one, with a 
specification which will limit its application to be 
alone — as follows : 



Be agrees with its singular subject, in person, 
and with its plural subject in number ; as, I am, 
we are. 

This rule applies to be, and to no other verb — 
but it will not apply even to be, in all instances. 
For, in the imperative mood, this verb has no 
variation whatever ; as, " Be thou a good boy, 
John. Be ye good children till I return." 

In the first of these instances, the verb is of the 
second person (as say our received grammars), 
singular number — but in the second, the same 
verb without the least change, is of the second 
person plural ! 

The rule fails, completely fails, also, where be 
is placed beyond the subject's influence, by the 
intervention of one, or more other verbs ; as, He 
will have been there six years next. June. 

In all similar instances be is been, for it is nei- 
ther under the control of the number, nor person 
of the subject. For, whether the cordictive trunk 
word is, I, thou, he, we, ye, or they, the form of be, 
is been ; as, They shall have been, Thou shalt have 
been, Ye shall have been. 

Nor will this rule apply where be is in the sub- 
junctive mood ; as, If I were there, &c. If I be 
there next week, &c. 

In these, and all similar instances, this rule 
will not apply. It fails to apply not only in these 
instances, but in each instance of the indicative 
mood, in which an auxiliary verb precedes be; as, 
" He will be here" — " Thou wilt be there" — " I 
can be at home." 

After, then, making the most of this rule, which 
is founded upon the number, and person of the 
verb, it is confined to be — and even to this verb, 
it will not apply in one-third of the instances 
where be is used. And as to this rule in its 
original form, it is a burlesque upon the true 
relation of the verb with the cordictive noun, and 
pronoun. 

" The verb agrees with its nominative case in 
number and person ! ! .'" 

The rule in this form — The verb agrees with its 
singular subject in person; as, I am, thou art, 
he is. . 

The verb agrees with its plural subject in 
number ; as, We are, ye are, they are, is inappli- 
cable! And even when it is cut down to the 



dimensions of a mere nothing, it applies to 
but one verb, and to this one in a few instances 
only! 

" Be agrees with its singular subject in person, 
and with its plural, in number; as, I am, we 
are." 

Let us now bring the rule to its true form — 
Be, when a principal verb in the indicative mood 
only, agrees with its singular subject in person, 
and with its plural, in number ; as, I am, we 
are. 

We will now undertake to extend the application 
of our first rule — the second can never be applied 
beyond be itself. 

rule i. 

The verb agrees with its singular subject in 
person as, " I am." 

RULE II. 

"The verb agrees with its plural subject in 
number; as, We are." 

In saying — I write, thou wrilest, he writes, we 
have three singular cordictive trunk words — but 
we find only two personal forms in the verb. 
These are st, and s. 



The verb agrees with the cordictive trunk 
word of the second, and of the third person sin- 
gular, in person ; as, Thou writest, he writes. 

Let us now vary the tense — Thou wroiest, he 
wrote. 

Here we find another failure*. What now ? 
We must cut down the rule : 

The verb agrees with the second person singu- 
lar, in person ; as thou wrotest. But in the next 
instance this rule has no application — " Thou 
must learn well." 

Yes, here the rule expires. Thus we have 
chased this phantom till this word of compulsion 
says stop. " Thou must learn well." 

Learn what ? Why, that the verb agrees with 
its nominative case in nuxMber, and person ! ! 
No — thou must learn that the world has long 
been deceived by this rule, and that thou must 
not put too much confidence in mere assertion. 
Thou must not take the mere importation of as- 
sertion from England, to be proof of its truth — 
thou must doubt till the proof is made out. Con- 
sider that rules which are untrue, trifle with your 
most precious moments — hence thou must always 
insist upon having the reason ! 

But, alas, we may be wrong after all • We have 
forgotten to examine Mr. G. B.'s " first lines " 
on this subject. Let us, then, hasten to these 
Lines, that we may know what we are, and where 
we are ! Our author says that — 

" Persons, in grammar, are modifications that 
distinguish the speaker, the hearer, and the person, 
or thing merely spoken of." Under page 31, the 



APPEAL. 



113 



drawer of these Lines begins the parsing of the 
following sentence. 

" She purchased it." 

The parsing runs as follows : 

She is a personal pronoun, of the third person 
singular number, feminine gender, and in the 
nominative case." 

1. " A pronoun is a word used instead of a 
noun." 

2. "A personal pronoun, is a pronoun that 
shows, by its form, of what person it is." 

3. "The third person is that which denotes the 
person or tiling merely spoken of." 

4. " The singular number is that which denotes 
but one." 

5. " The feminine gender, is that which denotes 
animals of the female kind." 

6. " The nominative case is that form or state 
of a noun or pronoun, which denotes the subject 
of a verb." (105 words in the solution of 
she ! !) 

" Purchased, is a singular active transitive verb, 
from purchase, and purchasing; found in the indie- 
ativc mood, imperfect tense, third person, singular 
number." 

1. "A verb is a word that signifies to be, to act, 
or to be acted upon." 

2. "A regular verb, is a verb that forms the 
preterite, and the perfect participle by assuming 
d or ed." 

3. "An active transitive verb, is a verb that 
expresses an action which has some person or 
thing for its object." 

4. " The indicative mood is that form of the 
verb, which simply indicates or declares a thing, 
or asks a question." 

5. " The imperfect tense is that which expresses 
what took place within some period of time per- 
fectly passed." 

6. " The third person is that which denotes a 
person or thing merely spoken of." 

7. " The singular number is that which denotes 
but one." (137 words in parsing purchased ! .') 

"Purchased," is third person, singular num- 
ber ! ! 

"Persons, in grammar, are modifications that 
distinguish the speaker, the hearer, and the person 
or thing merely spoken of! !" 

Pray, is it the form of "purchased" which 
shows what is spoken of in this sentence ! ? 

" She purchased it." 

Does the word, purchased, either by its diction- 
ary character, or by its grammatical form, denote 
what is spoken of in this sentence ! ? Does not 
the word, she, denote what is merely spoken of!? 
And does not the word, it, denote what is merely 
spoken of! ? What, is the author of this sentence 
speaking of the act of purchasing — or is he speak- 
ing of the person who purchased, and the thing 
purchased ! ? She — well, what about she ? Why 
she purchased a book J 



Mark the emphatic manner in which the 
drawer of these Lines makes an application of the 
definition of the third person to purchased — 

Purchased, a verb of the third person. 

" The third person is that which denotes the 
person, or thing merely spoken of." 

Yes, the same definition which is applied to this 
verb, is applied to the pronoun, she, itself! 

" Third person, and singular number." 

Now, "number" (says Murray's mender) "is a 
modification which distinguishes unity from plu- 
rality !" 

But where is this numeral modification of 
purchased ! ? 

Purchased is said to be of the singular number 
— and then this definition is applied — 

" The singular number is that which denotes 
but one !" 

1. I purchased ; (singular.) 

2. Repurchased; (plural.) 

1. I purchased ; (first person !) 

2. Ye purchased ; (second person !) 

3. They purchased ; (third person !) 

Our mender certainly must have a copious 
vision — indeed, somewhere in the frame-work of 
his grammar lens, he must have a numeral multi- 
plier — else, how should one form be multiplied to 
so many ! ? 

" A verb must agree with its subject, or nomi- 
native, in person, and number; as, I must walk, 
Thou must walk, He must walk, We, must walk, 
Ye must walk, They must walk." 

But we will employ our author's own example 
— " know." 

1. If I know, (one form.) 

2. If thou know, (same form.) 

3. If he know, (same form.) 

1. If we know, (same form.) 

2. If ye know, (same form.) 

3. If they know, (same form.) 

Having shown that our mender is actually de- 
ceived in the number of forms with which verbs are 
furnished, for the expression of their grammatical 
properties, we should be inclined to give him an 
hour of rest, was it not that we feel curious to 
place his organ of construction beside his percep- 
tion of form ! This we shall do without any de- 
sign to make this novus homo gloat • We shall 
not be particular in our selection of a sentence — ■ 
we will take one of those which we have already 
presented — 

" Persons, in grammar, are modifications that 
distinguish the speaker, the hearer, and the person, 
or thing merely spoken of." 

That is, persons are modifications which distin- 
guish the speaker that is merely spoken of, and 
the person, or thing, that is merely spoken of! ! 

This is no quibble — but the fair presentation of 
the construction of the sentence. Let us take 
something similar through which the true con- 
struction of this sentence can be clearly seen— 



114 



APPEAL. 



These compilations, in America, are works that 
degrade the author, the teacher, and the student, 
jf the system ! 

That is, these compilations are works that de- 
grade the author of the system, the teacher of the 
system, and the student of the system I What a 
production our author's sentence has turned out to 
be! In its sentiments false — in its construction, 
degrading to the very name of grammar ! 

We shall now undertake to bring the relation 
between the verb, and its cordictive noun, or pro- 
noun, down to the naked facts. We must first 
observe, however, that Mr. Murray attempted to 
fix upon the verbs, number, and person, as pins 
from which to suspend this rule, — "The verb 
agrees with its nominative case, in number, and 
person." 

This being a rule in all the learned languages, 
the author presumed that no true system of gram- 
mar could be formed without it. Besides, Mr. M. 
saw a necessity for something of this kind to re- 
gulate the few inflections which the verbs, in par- 
ticular instances, actually receive through the in- 
fluence of their cordictive nouns, or pronouns. For 
example ; I am, thou art, he is, we ,are, ye are, 
they are, — thou writest, he writes, or writeth. 

But had Mr. M. considered that all these forms 
may be reduced to five, and receive an appropriate 
name, he would surely have given the name, and 
founded rules upon this name. The forms them- 
selves are produced by the rcladiction of the cor- 
dictive noun, or pronoun. Hence they should be 
styled reladictive inflections. They are five in 
number — t, st, s, es, th. 

Yes, these are the inflections for the proper use 
of which the world has for ages been perplexed 
with the absurd rule — " The verb must agree 
with its nominative case in number, and person." 

The substitute for this Rule may be found in 
Book II. page 262. 

The last Rule given by the old school Gramma- 
rians as a guide to the learner in forming sen- 
tences, on which I intend to comment, is that 
that is founded upon the curious doctrine that 
two single objects must be connected together to 
make them two ! 

Rule. Two or more nominative cases, though 
in the singular number, connected by the con- 
junction, and, require the verb to agree with them 
in the plural number ; as, John, and Charles are 
good pupils. [J. R. Chandler's Grammar, p. 117.] 

Rule. " Two or more nominatives in the sin- 
gular, connected by and expressed or understood, 
require a verb in the plural; as, Socrates and 
Plato were " eminent philosophers. John S. Hart's 
Grammar, p. 113. 

Rule. Two or more nouns in the singular num- 
ber joined together by a copulative conjunction 
must have verbs agreeing with them in the plural 
number ; as, Socrates and Plato were sound philo- 
sophers. — Murray, p. 130. 



Rule. "Where a verb has two or more nomi- 
natives connected by and, it must agree with 
them in the plural number :" as, A boy, and a 
girl are human beings. — Goold Brown's Gram- 
mar, p. 153. 

Perhaps the common aphorism, " what is every- 
body's business, is nobody's," is as strikingly ex- 
emplified in the general neglect with which the 
language of any nation is treated, as in anything 
in which men have a community of interest. The 
abuses which a language suffers, are rarely cor 
rected : they are permitted to continue till that ear 
on which they at first grate, loses its power to 
distinguish between harmony and, discord. And, 
as what is right in sound, is just in grammar, the 
true genius of the language, is often disregarded 
even by the best scholars. Was it not that what 
is the business of everybody, is that of nobody, we 
might hope for important simplifications in our 
vernacular tongue. As it is, however, little or 
nothing can be expected but a continuation of 
the changes which deform our language by a total 
disregard to its grammatical principles. It is not 
my intention to mention the numerous instances 
which these remarks embrace. It becomes neces- 
sary, however, to introduce one in which we 
depend, not upon the language employed, but 
upon the nature of the subject on which we speak, 
for what we wish to express. For instance : 
" John, and James are good boys." 

It is here said that John are good boys, and that 
James are good boys ! The writer, however, de- 
pends upon his readers to correct this error in the 
expression, from the nature of the subject itself. 
That this is bad English, may be proved from 
supplying the ellipsis which even all the old school 
grammarians admit : John are good boys ; and 
James are good boys. 

Again. "John, and James write letters." 

By rendering these monos plenary, it will be 
seen that the sentence is not English ; 

John write letters ; and James write letters. 

Nothing is more obvious than that write can 
have no syntax relation with "John." We do 
not say John write, but John writes. 

Can it be replied that it is not pretended that 
write has a syntax relation with John ? Why, 
John is said to be in the nominative case to write, 
and write is said to be a verb of the plural num- 
ber, agreeing in number with the nominative 
John! But, as write is of the plural, and John 
of the singular, how is it possible for write to 
a^ree in number with John ? Can W. agree in 
opinion with J. when W.'s opinion is entirely 
different from J.'s ? 

It may be replied, however, that write agrees 
with John and brother, in number. If write agrees 
with John and brother too, it certainly agrees with 
John. Yet, how, yea, how can write which 
is plural, agree in number with John which is 
singular ? How can two men agree in opinion 






APPEAL. 



115 



about the value of a certain house, when one of 
the two thinks it worth $8,000, and the other, 
$4,000 only ? 

With a view to an impartial investigation of 
this subject, it will be necessary to settle, in the 
first place, whether there are ellipses in those con- 
structions in which and falls between two cor- 
dictive nouns of the singular number. And as a 
preliminary step in the decision of this point, it 
may be well to see whether there are ellipses 
where and falls between two cordictive nouns of 
the plural number : 

1. " Girls, and boys are human beings." 

2. " Girls, and boys were present," 

3. " Girls, and boys write copies." 

4. " Girls, and boys have books." 

Must not every grammarian admit that the 
following is the true rendering of these sentences ? 

1. "Girls are human beings; and boys" are 
human beings. 

2. " Girls were present ; and boys " were present. 

3. " Girls write copies ; and boys " write 
copies. 

4 " Girls have books ; and bo} T s " have books. 

Now, as it must be allowed that this rendering 
is consistent with the very genius of the doctrine 
of ellipsis, how can it be said that the following 
sentences have no ellipses ? 

1. A girl, and a boy are human beings. 

2. A girl, and a boy were present. 

3. A girl, and a boy write copies. 

4. A girl, and a boy have books. 

But, say the old school grammarians, as the 
allowing of ellipses in these sentences, produces 
a gross incongruity in one instance, between the 
language, and the seyise, and a gross violation of 
the first rule in our common grammars in the 
others, no ellipsis can be allowed. If an ellipsis 
is allowed in the first instance, the writer will be 
made to say that one girl is two, or more human 
beings I This, however, is the case, whether the 
the ellipsis are allowed or not ? 

1. " A girl, and a boy are human beings. 

1. What is the predicate of this sentence ? That 
is, what is the thing, or fact which is affirmed ? 
The predicate is, " human beings." 

2. Of what, or of whom, is this the predicate ? 
In other words, to what, or to whom, is the fact 
that these persons are " human beings,'''' ascribed ? 
If I say, " John is a thief,'''' it is predicated, or said, 
of John, that he is a thief. 

And, if I say, "John is thirty thieves," it is pre- 
dicated of John that he is thirty thieves. 

1. Is any thing said, or predicated of a girl, in 
the following sentence ? 

"A girl, and a boy are human beings." 

2. Is there any thing said, or predicated, of a 
boy in the following sentence ? 

"A girl, and a boy are human beings." 

What is this predicate ? " human beings." A girl, 



yes, one girl, then, is said to be human beings, 
even without allowing any ellipsis ! 

It may be replied however that nothing is pre- 
dicated of the girl separately from the boy, and 
nothing, of the boy, separately from the girl. In 
answer, it may be said that, if nothing is predi- 
cated of these two persons separately, there is 
nothing at all predicated of them. I challenge all 
the learning in the heads, and books of men, to 
show that, a sentence comprising but one verb, 
whether that verb is simple, or compound, can 
predicate any thing of two things, unless these 
two things are embraced in one, and the same 
noun, or pronoun ! For instance, The pens are 
good, We are pupils. 

It is a truth which is worthy of the admiration 
of the philologist, that the verb which affirms of 
John, cannot affirm of James unless both individuals 
are embraced in one and the same noun, or pronoun ! 
If these individuals are mentioned in different 
words, whatever is said, predicated, of them, must 
be said, must be predicated, in different monos ; 
as, " John, and James, are sick." 

That is, John is sick ; and James is sick. 
" John, and James are sick." 
Something is here affirmed of John ; and some- 
thing is here affirmed of James. Are, however, 
makes but one affirmation ! Here are two persons, 
John and James : and, that something may be af- 
firmed of both, there must be two affirmations ! Are 
makes but one affirmation — and this one affirma- 
tion concerns John only. Hence, if there is not 
an are understood, nothing whatever is said of 
James ! 

1. ["Girls, (and boys , , , ) are] (human 
beings.") 

2. [" A girl and a boy are human beings."] 
The objection which the old school grammarian 

offers to allowing ellipses in instances of the 
singular number is founded upon the incongruity 
of making one being two beings. I have shown, 
however, that this incongruity does not spring from 
allowing the ellipsis : I have proved that this in- 
congruity, this want of sense, exists even when the 
sentence is considered a. plenary paragraph ! But 
an ellipsis does not depend upon the sense of a 
sentence : an ellipsis depends upon the construc- 
tion of the sentence. In the two following sen- 
tences, the sense is the same; yet in the first 
there is an ellipsis ; in the second, none : 

1. ["I gave ( , John) an apple."] 

2. [" I gave an apple] (to John.") 

What, is a numeral difference to decide upon 
cases of ellipses ? Impossible. If a difference in 
number could exert any influence over cases of 
ellipses, the mono which than gives, might be 
plenary, or implenary, according to the number 
of the noun, or pronoun. 

1. "John is taller (than we , .") 

2. " John is taller (than I.") 

This incongruity of which the old school gram- 



116 



APPEAL. 



marians complain must exist as long as our Ian- 
guage remains incompetent to express distinctly, 
what it now leaves to the nature of the subject to 
decide : 

1. " Six, and six are twelve." 

2. " The names of the men, killed, were Johns- 
son, Stephenson, Jones, and Nathans." 

3. " The names of the two prisoners, were 
Janeway and Lewis" 

1. In the first, it is affirmed that, six is 
twelve .' 

2. In the second, it is affirmed that, the names 
are Johnson ! If, then, the expressed idea is to 
be regarded, the word, Johnson is more than 
one name ! 

Nor is this all ; for it is also affirmed, and that 
too with an exactness which excludes ambiguity, 
that all the men who were killed, were named 
Johnson ! " The names of the men, killed, were 
Johnson !" 

Nor indeed is this all ; for, strange as it may- 
appear, this very sentence affirms, absolutely, that 
all the men were named Stephenson, that they 
were all named Jones, and that they were all 
named Nathans I 

This confusion is not the offspring of any ellip- 
sis : it is the effect of an obvious incompetency in 
the language to express the just ideas in the case. 

To remove this incompetency, some means 
must be contrived for making two singular 
nouns precisely synonymous in syntax, with one 
plural one. Until this is done, this constant 
catachresis, this desperate abuse of language, 
must continue.* 

Will it be said that this contrivance is found in 
and ? Does and make two singular nouns syno- 
nymous in syntax, with one plural one ? How, 
in what way ? By indicating that the things 
mentioned by the two singular nouns, are to be 
taken together; as, John, and his brother, are 
coming. 

The word, and, say the old school grammarians, 
indicates that John is to be taken, not alone, but 
with his brother ; and that the brother is to be 
taken, not alone, but with John. What, then, is 
the difference between and, and with ? 

1. "John, and his brother are coming." 

2. "John with his brother, is coming." 

Does not with indicate that John and the brother 
are to be taken together? Why, then, do we not 
say — John with his brother, are coming ! (Not 
is .') What now becomes of the doctrine upon 
which the verb is made plural when and occurs 

* A catachresis is a gross impropriety in speech. It is 
called by distinguished rhetoricians, a desperate abuse of 
words. It is the expressing of one idea by the name of 
another, which is incompatible with, and often contrary 
to it. " It is," says a distinguished writer, " when the 
speech is hard, strange, and unwonted." 

These instances are grossly contrary to the general 
usage of our language in similar cases. (Cata, against 
and chresis, use.) 



between two singular nouns ? If the doctrine, 
that the verb, should be plural, when the indivi- 
duals denoted by singular nouns, are taken, not 
separately, but together, is sound, then indeed the 
following are correct English sentences: 

1. John with his sister were at church ! 

2. John were at church with his sister » 

3. John with his mother are ill with a cold? 
(not is.) 

4. A book with a pen have fallen ! 

5. A watch with its chain have been lost 1 
(not has.) 

6. A horse with his saddle have been found .» 
(not has.) 

7. The horse with his saddle were injured ! (not 
was.) 

Now, it is the very province of with to unite 
one thing to another, and thereby to compel the 
reader to take them together. Yet, even under 
this connection, two singular nouns are not the 
syntax synonyme (Syn-o-nim,) of one plural 
one. How, then, can it be pretended that 
under that species of connection, which and 
indicates two singular nouns exert the same 
syntax influence over the verb, which one 
plural noun exerts ? With does bind one thing, 
to another; as, a house with an iron roof. But 
and never, never, connects one thing with 
another thing, nor one word with another word. 
And signifies the subjunction, the addition, of an 
entire proposition, of an entire cordiction, to some 
proposition, to some cordiction, of superior rank, 
in the sentence, or paragraph : as, 

" John, and his wife have six children." 

This is an instance of gross catachresis. It is 
here affirmed that John has six children, and that 
his wife has six children. And, was it not that 
what belongs to the husband, belongs also to tiie 
wife, and vice versa, this paragraph would give 
these parents twelve children instead of six ! 

" John, and his wife have six children/' 

That is, John have six children, and his wife 
have six children. 

The catachresis, this desperate abuse of have, 
still remains. Hence I deem it of some impor- 
tance to subjoin a few observations upon this par- 
ticular point : 

It is contended that and actually connects two 
single individuals, and thus constitutes plurality ; 
as, " He came forth bound hand and foot." 

" And," here, say the old school grammarians, 
connects hand and foot, and thus makes them 
plural '. 

This is a curious doctrine indeed. What, is it 
necessary to connect the hand with the foot to 
make them two 7 Do not these limbs amount to 
two without being tied together ? 

These limbs, however, were not connected. 
Examine the sentence : 

" And he came forth, bound hand, and foot with 
grave-clothes." 



APPEAL. 



117 



Will it be pretended that the foot was bound to 
the hand, or the hand to the foot ? No. 

What, then, does and connect? Does and con- 
nect the mere words, hand and foot ? There is no 
connection, not one particle, between these two 
words. Take the following : 

" Salt and meat arc very scarce." 
' Is there any connection between the words, 
salt and meat ? None whatever. If and connects 
these words, there must be a connection between 
them. But there is no connection between them : 
hence and does not connect them. If, however, 
we remove and, the removal will produce a con- 
nection between these very words : 

Salt meat is very scarce. 

And, then, docs not connect words : it separates 
them. 

To arrive at a just conclusion upon this subject, 
it will be necessary to settle a preliminary ques- 
tion : What does and mean? "And" is the sign 
of addition, the sign that something which fol- 
lows and, is to be added to something which 
precedes and ; as, 

1. " I, and he are sick.'* 

2. '• I, and thou are well." 

Now, is the word, he, added to the word, /, or is 
the real person denoted by the word, Ae, added to 
the real person denoted by the word I? 

Neither is word added to word, nor person to 
person ; but affirmation to affirmation. In other 
words, proposition to proposition. 

"The saddle, and horse were injured." 

That is, the saddle was injured ; and the horse 
was injured. In other words, the saddle was in- 
jured, add that the horse was also injured. The 
author of the sentence first asserts in a plenary 
mono, that the saddle was injured. Having done 
this in a plenary mono, he says add to the fact 
that the saddle was injured, the fact that the horse 
was also injured. The mono which and intro- 
duces, is that which follows and as may be seen 
by rendering both monos full. 

[The saddle was injured ;] and (the horse was 
injured.) 

And, then, is a conjunction, used to introduce 
an additional mono into the sentence. 

But I may be told that the introduction of this 
new mono, produces an error in the number of 
were. 

To this I reply that the introduction of this 
new mono, demonstrates that the verb should be 
in the singular, in all similar constructions : 

1. I, and he are. 

2. I, and thou are. 

The use of are, for is, in the first, and are for 
art, in the second, sentence, is opposed to propriety 
in speech, and to solution in grammar. Are never 
can be made to have any syntax relation with he — 
he are ! Nor can are hold any syntax relation 
with thou — thou are ! 

It is pretended, however, that /, and he, are 



united by and. Now, if these two pronouns are 
united, they have become one ; hence they are sin. 
gular. Can the plural number be formed by put- 
ting two words into one ? 

It matters not in what way I, and he are united, 
since no union can render either one, or both 
plural. Will that union which may be produced 
between two chairs, by placing a string about a 
leg of one, and then about a leg of the other, pro- 
duce plurality ? Is there not plurality as much 
before the application of the string, as after ? 
There are two chairs before the string is applied, 
and there are two after. The use of this string 
docs not make the two single seats into one plural 
one ! To make one chair plural, there must be as 
many as two seats in the same frame-work. The 
plural noun is one frame-work, not two; as, books, 
pens '. 

Now, " book," and "pen," can not be considered 
plural simply because they happen to be used in 
the same sentence : these words can not be put 
together in a way which will constitute plurality. 
Nor can the real pen, and the real book be expres- 
sed in two words in a manner which will consti- 
tute plurality in grammar. For so long as these 
things are denoted by two distinct words, they are 
taken separately, both by the mind, and by the 
nouns employed to denote them; as, book, and 
pen. But plurality in grammar is found where 
two, or more things are seized at the same time, 
and by the same word ; as, books. 

When two or more things are denoted separately, 
there is no plurality ; as, " 7, and he are, 1, and 
thou are." 

Here the individuals are denoted separately, 
hence, while there appears, from a slight glance, 
to be but one affirmation in a sentence, there are 
in truth two. One is made by expressed words, 
the other by implied ones : — 

[I, (and he , ) are,] [I, (and thou , ) are.] 

Now, by rendering these monos plenary, we 
shall convince all of the gross error which we 
trust the world will gradually, and gladly correct : 

1. [I are,] (and he are.) 

2. [I are,] (and thou are.) 

Corrected : 

1. [I am,] (and he is.) 

2. [I am,] (and thou art. 

But the trones of course should be left in their 
implenary state ; as, 

1. I, and he is. 

2. I, and thou are. 

Improper : 

1. I, and he write. 

2. He, and thou write. 

Proper : 

1. I, and he writes. 

2. He, and thou writest. 



US 



APPEAL. 



Rendered plenary : 

1. I write, and he writes. 

2. He writes, and thou writest. 
J . I, and he write. 

2. He, and thou write. 
By rendering these monos plenary, it is seen 
that they are actually bad English : 

1. I write, and he write I 

2. He write, and thou write l 

In instances in which or occurs, the verb is pro- 
perly used. 

I, or he is. He, or thou art. 

Rendered plenary : I am ; or he is, He is ; or 
thou art. 

To show the extent to which grammatical reso- 
lution is crippled by this total obliquity from the 
true genius of our language, I will parse these 
pronouns and verbs : 

" I, and he are." 

1. I, a pronoun, first person singular, and in the 
nominative case. But to what verb ? No one 
knows — every grammarian is mute ! Can 1 be 
nominative to are! Is I are English? 

2. He, a pronoun, third person, singular, and in 
the nominative case to are '. He are '. He are 
sick ! This, if possible, is worse than Mr. Mur- 
ray's " thirteenth, and fourteenth editions ! Thir- 
teenth apples . 

[In completing this article, perhaps I can not 
do better than to subjoin to the preceding reflec- 
tions, the last part of my reply to a gentleman of 
Philadelphia, who, in making a news paper attack 
upon the new system, ensconced himself behind 
the letter X.] 

X. says that he, Brown, seems to exclude the 
meanings of words from any share in determining 
the manner of their use ! ! ! 

Hear, hear. — An example of this exclusion is 
to be found in that part of the introduction to 
" An English Syntithology " which treats of the 
form of expression in this sentence ; I and he 
are." 

X. says that Brown admits that this form of 
expression has the sanction of usage. That 
Brown admits this, I am willing to allow. I 
I presume that Brown would admit that sin has 
the sanction of usage. But would X. argue from 
this admission, that sin is right ? 

What! is a mode of dress which is destructive 
to health, right because it has the sanction of 
usage ? ! 

" There is nothing, but usage which makes it 
proper to say in English, J love them, and in 
French, I them love.' 1 '' 

We are informed by the highest authority, that 
Adam gave names to the objects with which he 
found himself surrounded. But will X. pretend 
that the form of speech which Adam used, was that 
of usage ? Who had used this language before 
Adam ? ! What, then, becomes of the following 
position taken by X. ? 



There is nothing but usage, which makes it 
proper to say in English, I love them, and in 
French, I them love." 

I presume, then, that nothing but usage, made 
the language which the Supreme Being addressed 
to Adam, grammatical 1 

" Adam, where art thou ?" 

Some writers allege that there has been a time 
when there was no human society. If these 
writers are correct, there has been a time when 
there was neither usage, nor language ! If there 
has been such a time, language must have had an 
inceptive stage. Let us suppose, then, that the 
Romans were the first human beings that have 
been blessed with the advantages of the institu- 
tion of human society. Let us add to this that 
the first language originated with these people : 
and that the first form of speech was the following : 
" Fructum mi hi." " fruit give me." 

Now, if this particular form of speech, is tho 
first offspring of the philological legislation of the 
Romans, what influence did usage exert over it ? ! 
Here, then, is a fixed form of speech without the 
aid of usage, long continued use. But it may be 
asked whether this form of speech was right at the 
time of its formation. It was right because there 
was no law, no rule, against it. 

The Romans adopt this form of expression. 
That is, they adopt the principles on which this 
sentence is constructed. In what way, it may be 
asked, do they adopt these principles. By ex- 
pressing all similar ideas in the same form. Well, 
says X. this is usage. Granted : the principles of 
this expression now have the sanction of usage. 
And a conformity* to usage requires that all simi- 
lar ideas should be expressed in this particular 
form. Now, let it be supposed that in process of 
time the Romans met with instances in which the 
ideas to be expressed, are, in fact, similar to those 
of the sentence, " Fructum mi hi," but that from 
a want of proper attention, they do not discover 
the similarity, and consequently, employ a differ- 
ent form of speech for the expression of these 
similar ideas. Would this obliquity be usage, — 
or a departure from usage ? In other words, 
would not this new form of expression, arising 
from an ignorance of the true character of the 
ideas, be a violation of the principles on which the 
sentence, " Fructum mi hi, is constructed ? 

" Fructum mi hi" That is, give me fruit. 

Let it be supposed that one Roman desired to 
say to another, give thou to me a pen. But from 
an ignorance of the analogy between these ideas, 
and those which are expressed in " Fructum mi 
hi," he used, not pennam mi hi, but, mi hipennam ; 
and that mi hi pennam became a common form 
of speech within the Roman dominions. Must 
not mi hi pennam be the offspring of ignorance, 
and a departure from the principles which en- 
lightened usage had already sanctioned ? 



APPEAL. 



119 



Again. Let it be supposed that in 1S40, the 
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, from a partial 
ignorance of the exact legal character of a parti- 
cular case, departed from their numerous and just 
decisions in all similar cases. Would this unsound 
decision become the law of the land ? Would a 
Philadelphia lawyer urge this decision before a 
lower court, as the law of Pennsylvania ? He 
might, but he would do it with a very ill grace, 
and to very little purpose. He would be met by 
his opponent brother at the bar with the para- 
mount argument that this particular decision, is a 
departure from the great principles of law on 
which all similar cases had been decided prior to 
1840, by the same tribunal. The Judge in his 
charge to the jury, would sustain the rejoinder, 
and here would be an end of the question. Let 
me now make an application of this principle to 
the case of X. Brown says that, " I and he are," 
is not in accordance with the principles which 
usage has established ; but an obvious departure 
from them. What are the principles which usage 
has established in regard to the form of the verb ? 
They are expressed in the following Rule. 

'• The verb must agree with its nominative case 
in number and person," as, I am, thou art, he is, 
they are. 

" I and he are." 

He is here placed in the nominative case to are. 
But as are is plural, it does not agree with he 
which is singular. We are, you are, and they 
are, is English. But neither I are, nor he are, is 
English. It is a gross obliquity from English. 
This departure from the true genius of the 
language, has arisen from the presumption that 
two singular nouns, or pronouns, between which 
and is placed, are equal to one plural noun, or 
pronoun. Under this false notion of the subject, 
grammarians use the plural verb with two singular 
nominatives, which have and between them ; as, 
" /, and he are." 

The ground taken by the old school grammari- 
ans, is that/, and he, are connected by and — hence 
they are taken together — and, as they are taken 
together, they constitute a plural nominative. 

X. is plain upon this point. He says that 
" His (Brown's) error arises from a disregard of 
the mental operation of grouping objects. When 
it is said that — this chair, and that chair, are good 
chairs, the mind, before it has employed words to 
express the thought, has considered them together, 
and has regarded them as two chairs." (X.) 

I hope the readers of the Ledger, will do X. the 
justice to understand, fully, this reasoning. There 
is certainly a high degree of ingenuity in the argu- 
ment. What! is it necessary for the mind to 
bring two chairs together, to make them two 
chairs ? Hear, hear — " The mind, before it has 
employed words to express the thought, has con- 
sidered them together, and has regarded them as 
two chairs ! I" Were there not two chairs before 



this very logical process ! ? Did the bringing of 
the chairs together multiply them from unity to 
plurality? 

But why does X. resort to philosophy to sustain 
this form of expression ? Does he not expressly 
declare that there is nothing but usage which can 
make one form right, and another one wrong ! ? 
Hear, hear. — " I have always thought that there 
was no appeal from the settled usages of a lan- 
guage I" " There is nothing but usage which 
makes it proper to say in English, / love them, and 
in French, I them love!!" (What French! .'.') 

But how does this doctrine of usage comport 
with the view which he expresses in the very first 
sentence of his first article ? 

" It is highly important that we should fully 
understand the principles on which the English 
Language is constructed ! !" 

Language, then, is formed upon principles. 
Let us read X. with a substitution of usage for 
principles : 

It is highly important that we should fully 
understand the usage on which the English Lan- 
guage is constructed ! ! " We are indebted to 
Murray and others for what they have done tow- 
ards reducing the disorder of usage to system, but 
we ought to feel more indebted to James Brown 
for his deeper exploration of this subject." 

What subject ? Why the disorder of usage ! ! ! 
Language has principles — and usage should con- 
form to them ; but it never has taken, nor do I 
believe it ever will take, the place of them. 

Upon what does X. attempt to sustain the use 
of are after he in the period — I, and he are ? It ia 
the curious doctrine that two chairs or other ob- 
jects, are made two by taking them together. In 
other words, that plurality becomes plurality, 
because the mind groups the objects ! But that 
the position, that, where two single objects are 
taken together, the verb should be plural, can not 
be sustained, is obvious from the consideration that 
where with occurs the verb is singular. 

1. John with his brother is coming. (Not are.) 
Does not with indicate that John is taken with his 
brother ? Are not the two, then, taken, toge- 
ther ! ? 

2. A watch with its chain has been lost. (Not 
have.) 

But does not the mind take the watch, and the 
chain together ! ? Is it in the power of X. to tell 
why this verb should not be plural ? He says that 
are should be used because the mind considers I 
and he together ! Can he show that the mind 
does not take the watch and its chain together!? 

I deny the doctrine that and indicates that the 
objects are taken together. For instance : 

He purchased salt, and meat. 

Is there any thing here which indicates that he 
purchased the salt with the meat ? Nothing. He 
might have purchased the salt in 1812, and the 
meat in 1844! 



120 



APPEAL. 



But where with is employed, we are compelled 
to take the articles together. 
He purchased salt with meat. 
It seems, then, that where we are compelled, 
from the nature of the expression, to take the 
single things together, the verb is singular ! 

As the character of the word, and, has an obvi- 
ous bearing upon this question, it may be well to 
undertake a particular developement of it in this 
place. Grammarians denominate and a conjunc- 
tion. But as the letter X. conceals the identity of 
my opponent, so does the word, conjunction, con- 
ceal the true character of and. 

" And'''' says Webster, " is a conjunction connec- 
tive, or conjoining word." That the conjunctive 
character of and, may be well understood, he 
gives the following illustration : 

"John, and Peter, and James rode to New 
York — that is, John rode to New York; add or 
further, Peter rode to New York ; add James 
rode to New York." According to this illustra- 
tion, and means more, further, addition. How, 
then, can it be a conjoining word ? Was and a 
conjunction in character, it would exert as much 
influence over the preceding member of the sen- 
tence, as it does over the succeeding one. But Mr. 
Webster's explanation makes and exerts all its 
influence over the member of the sentence, which 
follows and, : 

"John, and Peter, and James rode to New 
York." That is, says Mr. Webster, John rode to 
New York ; add or further, Peter rode to New 
York ; add James rode to New York." The word, 
and, has nothing to do with the first member of 
the paragraph, — " John rode to New York." The 
first and is employed to subjoin, to add, to affix, 
the second member to the first — and " Peter rode 
to New York:'' 

The second and is used, not to conjoin the 
second and the third member of the sentence, but 
to affix, subjoin, add the third to the second. And, 
then, is a subjoining word — not a conjoining one. 
What ! is the chain which drags a log to a stand- 
ing tree, a conjunction ? To be a conjoining 
chain, it must drag the firmly fixed tree as well as 
the log, till it brings them together. The first 
proposition is always fixed — it cannot be moved by 
and ; as, "John rode to New York.'''' 

A second proposition may be dragged to the 
first by and ; as " John rede to New York ; and 
Peter rode to New York." 

Fancy that the Bible is before you. Does the 
hand which moves Trego's Geography of Penn- 
sylvania up to this Bible, exert any influence over 
the Bible ? Mr. Webster has well illustrated one 
trait in the character of and; but he has not illus- 
trated any part of the character of a conjoining 
word ! The main trait in the character of and, 
which Mr. Webster, in common with other old 
school grammarians, has not attempted to give, is 
the expression of harmony in character, with the 



preceding matter. For instance— "John, and 
Peter, and James rode to New York." Here 
John, Peter, and James ride to the same place — 
in this they harmonize, agree — in this they are 
homogeneous. 

John rode ; but Peter walked to New York. 
The agent character of Peter does not harmonize 
with that of John, hence and cannot be used be- 
fore Peter. 
John rode to New York; but Peter rode to Boston. 
The character which Boston gives Peter does 
not accord with that which New York gives John 
— hence and can not be used. 

"And'''' signifies harmony in character. 
" A certain man planted a vineyard, and set a 
hedge about it, and digged a place for the wine- 
vat, and built a tower, and let it out to husband- 
men, and went into a far country." 

These five acts have the same agent — in this 
they harmonize — hence and is properly used be- 
fore the words, set, digged, built, let, and went. 
In the following and is properly used : 
A certain man planted a vineyard ; and his 
brother set a hedge about it. 

The setting of the hedge is in harmony with 
the planting of the vineyard : the setting results 
naturally enough from the planting. 

In the following and can not be used. John 
built a house ; but it did not stand long. 

There is no harmony between the implied in- 
tention of the builder, and the ruin of the house ; 
it was built, not for destruction, but for duration. 

In the following, and should be used : John 
makes money and he keeps it. 

The keeping of the money is in harmony with 
the implied purpose for which John makes it. 

In the following, and can not be used with any 
propriety. John makes money ; but he wastes it. 
The wasting of the money is not in harmony 
with the implied purpose for which it is made. 
In the following and should be used : 
" Henry has purchased a horse, and John has 
sold an ox to-day." As these two acts are busi- 
ness transactions, they are in harmony one with 
the other. 

In the following and can not be used : 
The Alderman heard the witness ; but he had 
not sworn him. 

The not swearing of the witness is so much out 
of harmony with the hearing of his statement, 
that the use of and would be as great a mockery 
in grammar, as such a proceeding would be in the " 
administration of justice. 

The following is good in grammar, as well as 
in law. 

The Alderman swore the witness, and, then, 
heard his statement. 

And signifies that the character of the matter 
which follows it, is in harmony with that of the 
matter which precedes it. The word but, and 
several other conjunctions signify the reverse. 



APPEAL. 



121 



Why, then, is and used in the following ? 

" John, and Thomas arc honest men." 

X. says that and is employed because these 
two persons are taken together. But Brown says 
that and is used because the character of Thomas 
is in harmony with that of John. 

If and is used because these two persons are 
taken together, the following is bad English : 

John as well as Thomas is an honest man. 
Are they not here taken together ? 

As well as, and and, are the same in character, 
which may be seen from the following : 
Henry is healthy as well as strong. 
Henry is healthy, and strong. 

Let me now ask why must are be used when 
and occurs ? 

" John and Thomas are honest men." 

X. says are must be used because the mind 
takes John and Thomas together ! But does not 
the mind take Thomas with John in the following? 
John as well as Thomas is honest ! 

Why do we not say, — John as well as Thomas 
are honest.'? To answer this question, X. must 
show that '.he writer does not intend to affirm the 
same thing of Thomas which he affirms of John ; 
The doctrine of X. is that wherever the same 
predicate :s ascribed to two singular subjects, the 
subjects must be taken together ! He further 
teaches tlat as they are taken together, are must 
be used hstead of is ! But here are two singular 
subjects which the mind takes together, and to 
which tie same predicate is ascribed — yet is, is 
employed instead of are ' John as well as Tho- 
mas is hmest ! ! 

Here s the altar — X. is the victim which must 
be sacriiced upon it. 

Bat n-hat has thrown X. upon this burning pile 
of words ? His " disregard o/" the fact that two 
singular nouns can not make a. plural one. Book 
ma; be repeated a thousand times, — yet each re- 
petlion denotes a single book — Book, book, book, is 
not plural. Books is the plural of book .' The 
phral number is the direct expression of more 
thm one thing, in the same word ; as man, men. 

I hope the readers of the Ledger will fully un- 
dtrstand me here. Mr. Webster says — " Plural, 
cmtaining more than one, designating two or 
nore ; as, a plural word." 

" I, and he are." (X.) 

Is I a plural word ? Is he a. plural word ? 

Why then is are used with he ? X. says that 
'■'■are" is used because the plural number is found 
in the nominative. How, pray, is the plural num- 
ber made out ? Why, by taking the person de- 
noted by he, with him who is expressed by I ! ! 
Ah ! and does the taking of the real persons de- 
noted by the words i, and he, infuse the plural 
number into the word I, and into the word, he!? 
This is surely a curious way of rendering a word 
plural .' 



I have always understood that we is the plural 
of I. and they, of he. But X. says the plural of 
the words I, and he, is the taking of the person, 
whom he denotes, with the one whom / de- 
notes ! ! ! 

Mr. Webster says, — " In grammar, the plural 
number is that which designates more than one." 
Mark — it is the plural number of the word itself, 
which expresses the plurality of objects; as, books, 
we, they. In what way does X. get a plurality of 
objects ? By taking the real person denoted by 
he, with the real person denoted by I! / 

But Mr. Webster says that in grammar, the 
plurality of objects must be got by means of the 
plural number of the word ; as, We. They. 

" I, and he are." 

That here are two persons is not denied. Nor 
can it be denied that there are two persons in the 
following : " 1, as well as he is !" 

X. derives the plurality from the expression of 
two distinct single things by means of two distinct 
pronouns of the singular number ! But in gram- 
mar the dominant principle is that the plurality 
must be expressed, not by the singular number 
of two distinct nouns, but by the plural number of 
the same noun ! What ! can it be said that the 
singular number of a noun, which is the same 
thing wherever found, is really the plural number 
because it is found in I, and he .' ? As well may 
it be said that one drop of water is two drops be- 
cause it is found at one time in the tributary 
stream, and at another in the mighty ocean ! The 
same singular number which is found in I, is 
found in he. There is but one singular number : 
The singular number of lis the capacity of this 
pronoun to 'denote but one person. This same 
numeral capacity is the singular number of he. 

There is but one plural number — the plural 
number is the capacity of the word to express 
more than one thing ; as, we, they. 

This same numeral capacity which is in wc, 
is in they. 

" There can be no doubt," says X. " that it is 
proper to say, four and one are five. In accord- 
ance with our author's theory, we should say, four 
and one is five, and by applying his test we 
should find that we should say, four is five, and 
one is five." 

1. " Four, and one are five." 

2. " Four is five, and one is five." 

The predicate is what is said of the subject. 
Here are two subjects — viz. four and one. What 
is the predicate ? The predicate in both syllabanes, 
is Jive. 

What is the predicate in the following ? 

John, and his brother are sick : 

That is, what is said of John, and his brother ? 
It is said of them that they are Sick. 

Sick, then, is the predicate of both. In other 



122 



APPEAL. 



words, it is predicated of John, and his brother, 
that they are sick. 

" Four, and one are five." 

Here five is the predicate. But of what is Jive 
the predicate ? Five is the predicate of four I 

Now X., is any thing predicated of four ? O 
yes. What is it which is predicated of four ? 
If any thing is predicated of four, it must be 
five ; for five is the only predicate in the propo- 
sition. It is here said, then, that four is Jive ! 1 1 
But X. says that it is correct to say, "four and 
one are Jive.' 1 '' — but incorrect to say, four is five, 
and one is Jive." 

If, however, X. is at all expert in the process of 
simple reasoning, he will see with perfect clear- 
ness, that his form of expression is liable to the 
same objection which he makes to Brown's." 
"Four, and one <avejive." 

Is any thing here affirmed ? Yes. — What 
is it? 

It is here affirmed that four are Jive ! Is any 
thing predicated of one? Surely. What is the 
predicate of one ? It is Jive ? Five is the only 
predicate in the sentence — hence, if any thing is 
predicated of one, it must be Jive .' What advan- 
tage, then, has the form of X. over that of Brown ? 
None at all ! 

1. "Four, and one nrejive." 

2. " Four is five, and one is five." 

But is this Brown's construction ? It is not, — 
it is the invention of X. himself! The following 
is Brown's : Four with one are five. 

That is, when you withe, tie, or add one to four, 
you have five. Brown's principles, then not 
only do not produce absurdity, but they remove it. 
But X. could not examine these principles which 
are presented in Book 1. p. 63. And which are 
contained in the following extract : 

[" The man ;] (and the woman bear the con- 
jugal yoke.") 

[The man] ; (and the woman bears the conjugal 
yoke.) 

The import of and is that of add. First, it is 
affirmed in an implenary mono, that the man bears 
the conjugal yoke — and, secondly, it is affirmed in 
a plenary mono, that the woman bears it. The 
true sense is this : the man bears the conjugal 
yoke, add that the woman bears it. 

That is, add to the fact that the man bears this 
yoke, the fact that the woman also bears it. 

[" The man ,,,,;] (and the woman bears the 
conjugal yoke.") 

1. The man , , , , ] 
an implenary unbroken trone. 

2. {and the woman hears the conjugal yoke,) 
a plenary unbroken clad, juxta position, first rank, 
uni adaption. 

Gnometic reading: 

[The man bears the conjugal yoke ;] {and the 
woman bears the conjugal yoke.) 



It may be thought, however, that, as this read- 
ing makes the man bear all the yoke and the 
woman bear all of it, it does not give the exact 
sense. The exact sense according to what? 
According to the import of the sentence, or accord- 
ing to the intention of the author of the sentence ? 
The author means to say that there is but one 
yoke, and that this is borne by the concurrent 
exertions of the husband, and the wife. This par- 
ticular sense, however, is not derived from the lan- 
guage used, but from the nature of the subject itself. 
The same form of expression applied to a subject 
of a different nature, will make the writer say that 
one agent derives no aid from the other in perform- 
ing the action expressed in the sentence. 
" The man and the woman died." 

[The man , , ;] (and the woman died.) 

Here the Gnometic reading is, — 

[The man died f] (and the woman died.) 

But why is this the true sense reading ? This 
is the true sense reading, because it represents the 
exact import of the sentence. 

The writer predicates of the man, tlat he died, 
— and that he expired without any aid from the 
woman. 

He also predicates of the woman, that she died, 
— and that she died without any aid from the 
man. 

[" The man died ;] (and the woman ded.") 
" The man, and woman bear the yoke." 

Is it not here predicated of the man that he 
hears the yoke ? and is it not here predicated of 
the woman that she bears it ? How, then, can 
the following rendering do this sentence the least 
injustice ? 

[" The man hears the yoke ;] (and the woman 
bears the yoke.") 

There is a discrepancy between the exact ex. 
pression, and the nature of the subject. 

The nature of the subject predicates of the nan 
a mere participation in the act of bearing the yike ; 
but the language predicates of the man, a \ull 
performance of this act. What, then, is the 
Grammarian to do? Is he to substitute the teal 
thing for the language which is employed to 
express the real thing ! ? No, no. The gran-, 
marian is bound to give a solution of the language* 
according to its true constructive import. It s 
not the province of the grammarian to solve tie 
subject, the theme itself, but to analyze the Ian 
guage according to its constructive, and significant 
laws. 

Where the agents are independent of one another 
in the performance of the expressed act, and 
should be used ; as, 

The man, and the woman died. 

But where the act expressed, is done by the 
concurrent aid of all the agents, with should be 
used ; as, 

The man with the woman, bears the conjugal 
yoke. 



APPEAL. 



123 



When two or more things are mentioned by 
singular words, there is no plurality in grammar, 
as, I, thou, and he must return. 

Plurality in grammar, and plurality in things, 
are totally different. Plurality in grammar is the 
expression of more than one thing- by means of 
the same noun, or pronoun ; as, mtn, we, boohs, 
they. But does the word 7, express more than one ? 
"7," then, is not plural. 

I, he, and thou art. Is there a plurality of 
persons here ? There certainly is. But is this 
plurality expressed by one word ! ? O, no. Here 
then, is no plurality in grammar. The plurality 
here belongs to the things, — not to the words 
which express the things. 

I, thou, or he is. 

Why should not are be used in this case ? 

There is a plurality of persons. The period 
mentions three persons. Why, then, should not 
are be used ? Because there is no plurality in any- 
one of the words which are employed to denote the 
persons. The plurality is here confined to the thino-s 
— hence are should not be used. 

" John, I hope that you are well." 

You is the representative of "John" — hence 
there is not a plurality in the thing. But there is 
a plurality in the word, you ; consequently, are 
should be used instead of art. 

The application of a plural word to one object, 
docs not destroy its grammatical plurality. There 
are two species of plurality — one may be denomi- 
nated the thing plurality ; the other the word plu- 
rality. The word plurality may exist where the 
thing plurality does not— and the thing plurality 
may exist where the word plurality does not. 

John, how are you ? (not, how art you.) 

Here is the word plurality — but not the thing 
plurality 

I, thou, or he is. 

Here is the thing plurality — but not the word 
plurality. Hence are should not be used. 

But it is pretended that these three persons are 
taken together, which gives a plurality. True, 
there is a thing plurality whether they are 
taken together, or not. But to justify the use of 
are there must be a word plurality in the nomi- 
native case. What word is in the nominative 
case ? He. Is there a word plurality in he ! ? 
But I shall be told that, 7, also is a nominative 
to are. Nor shall I fail to learn that the word, 
thou, is likewise a nominative to are. Thou are 1 — 
" I, and he are ! !" 

X. says that I, and he are taken together, which 
gives the plurality that requires are. 

But does the taking of the persons together 
produce plurality in their names I ? The real 
persons denoted by 7, and he, are the nominative 
to are ! The words, 7, and he, are not the nomina- 
tive to are. Hence to show that this nominative is 
plural, X. must show that the taking of the real 



person denoted by the word, 7, with him who is 
denoted by the word, he, infuses into these two, 
two pronouns, the plural number ! 
" I, thou, or he is." 
To what is 7, in the nominative case ? To am 
understood. To what is thou in the nominative 
case ? To art understood. To what is he in the 
nominative case ? To is expressed. This is the 
doctrine of every old school grammarian. And 
this too is the doctrine of every new school gram- 
marian. The new school wish to extend this doc- 
trine to every instance where and occurs between 
two singular nominatives : 7, and he is. That is, 
I am, and he is. 

The new school grammarians say that the verb 
should be expressed after the last nominative 
only ; and that the last nominative only, should 
deride what certain form of the verb should be 
used ; as, I, and he is. He, and I am. That 
is, He is, and I am. 

I, thou, or he is. 
I, thou, and he is. 
That is, I am, thou art, and he is 
" But X. would have it, I, thou, and he are." 
Hence the expression of the verbs which are 
understood ; would make the sentence read as 
follows : 

I are, thou are, and he are / .' or, 
I am, thou art, and he are ! ! ! 
But this is not all the folly of this departure 
from the Jirst principles established by usage: 
" I, and he are pupils.' 1 '' That is, 
I are pupils, and he are pupils ! 
Brown's plan is not so wonderful in its effects 
upon the things which are introduced into a sen- 
tence : it does not perform the miracle of making 
a plurality of pupils out of one person ! 

I, and he is a pupil. That is, I am a pupil, 
and he is a pupil. 

" I, and he are pupils .'" 
Is this form of expression to last as long as the 
English Language endures 2 I think not, it is a 
departure from the principles sanctioned by 
usage. Nay, more, it is a departure from reason — 
it makes one thing into many — and it puts gram- 
matical solution beyond the reach of skill. Can 7", 
and he in the following period be parsed ? 
" I, and he are pupils." 
Can I are pupils, be parsed ! ? 
But, absurd as this form of expression is, 
Brown does not expect to repeal it instanter. No. 
He not only uses it in his own writings, but he 
has made a rule to guide others in the use of it. 
(Rule XIII. Book II. p. 269.) 

What cause, then, can X. assign for saying to 
this community that Brown designs to affect a 
revolution in the English Language ! 1 

What excuse can he give for avowing to this 
community that Brown compares "the structure 
of a language" to the trunk of a tree and its 
branches ? 



124 



APPEAL. 



What atonement can he make for avowing that 
Brown teaches the learner to pay no attention 
to the meaning of words ! ? 

" I, and he are." 

Can X. find any part of Brown's hooks which 
Will justify the following. 

" He discards the meaning of the words, J, and 
he, and considers nothing but the framework re- 
lution which he supposes they hold with each 
other ! !" 

Brown teaches that JT, and he, hold a framework 
relation one with the other ! ! ! Where can X. 
find a justification for this course ? 

Perhaps he will find it in that part of Brown's 
theory which sustains him in saying that, Brown 
teaches that we should say, 

"four and one are Jive ."' 

"We say in accordance with settled usages, 
John, and Thomas are honest men." 

That is. John are honest men, and Thomas 
are honest men '. 

It seems, then, that out of a single John, are 
made two, or more honest men ; and that even out 
of one Thomas, this wonderful construction 
makes many honest men ! I wish, indeed I wish, 
that we could find a construction in the articles of 
X. which could make out of him, even one honest 
man ! ! 

But does not the mind consider the objects 
together where as well as occurs ? For instance : 

John as well as Thomas is an honest man. 

Here the two person^ are not only taken to- 
gether by the mind, but in construction, as well as 
is synonymous with and. Why, then, should not 
are be used where as well as occurs, as well as 
where and occurs ? 

I, as well as he is. (not are) 
"I, and he are .'" 

John, as well as Thomas is an honest man. 

" John, and Thomas are honest men ? .'" 

John are honest men ; and Thomas are honest 
men I 

Can X. " clear " himself "from " this diffi- 
culty ? 



CHAPTER XXII 

A COLLECTIVE NOUN IS ALWAYS SINGULAR UNLESS IT 
HAS THE PLURAL FORM. 

Although we do not feel justified in extending 
our critical reflections upon the Syntax part of the 
old theory yet our desire to say a few words on the 
subject of the following Rule, is so strong, that 
we shall devote another chapter to this part of the 
old Grammars. 

Rule. When the nominative is a collective noun 
conveying the idea of plurality, the verb must 



agree with it in the plural number. [Goold 
Brown's Grammar, p. 106.] 

Rule. A collective noun or a noun of multitude 
requires the verb to be in the plural whenever 
the idea is plural. [John S. Hart's Grammar, 
p. 111.] 

Hitherto the subject of nouns of multitude, has 
not, perhaps, been well understood, and of course, 
not clearly presented to the mind of the student. 
That these nouns are not rendered peculiar from 
the fact that they denote bodies which are made 
up of different parts, or of numerous members^ 
may be made quite obvious to all who have minds, 
capable of comprehending simple principles, and 
plain truths. It is said that the word, jury, is a 
collective noun, a noun of multitude. It is the 
prototype, the thing denoted by the word, jury % 
composed of many members, or parts? So is the 
prototype of the word, hand! A jury may com- 
prise six men ; a jury may comprise twelve men j 
and a jury may comprise twenty-four men. A 
hand comprises Jive nails, four fingers, one thumb, 
many joints, many arteries, many veins, and many 
bones ! If, then, the word, jury, is a collective 
name, a noun of multitude, because its prototype 
comprises many parts, certainly the word, hand, is 
a collective name, a noun of multitude ! ! 

" Family" is said to be a name of multitude, 
while booh is excluded from this class. Yet there 
are very few families that comprise as many 
members as a hook. It is hardly possible to find a 
family that is composed of more than thirty parts, 
or members — yet it is equally hard to find a book 
which is made up of so few parts, members, or 
pages ! A family is one thing made up of parts — 
a book is one thing made up of parts — a jury is 
one thing made up of parts — a tree is one thing 
made up of parts — a church is one thing made up 
of parts. A minute is one thing made up of 
parts. Is the church composed of sixty parts, 
or members, so is the minute. The word, minute, 
then, is as much a noun of multitude, as is the 
word, church. 

It may be said that as the members of a jury; 
&c, are distinct individuals, it is hardly just to 
consider them as bearing the same relation to the 
jury, which the fingers, &c., bear to the hand. 
True, a man is a distinct whole ; but he is 
also a mere part, John is a whole human 
being — but he is not a whole jury — he is 
a mere part of a jury. Every finger is a 
whole, abstractly considered ; but in reference to 
the hand, every finger is a mere part. John is a 
part of a jury — a finger is a part of a hand ! 

It is not sense to say, 

The jury has agreed. 

And it is bad sense, and bad English, also, to 
say, 

The jury have agreed. 
It takes two to make an agreement! How, 



APPEAL. 



125 



then, can one jury agree ? But for brevity, this 
form of expression is generally used. The correct 
construction, however, is, 

The members of the jury have agreed. 
But as the right one has a prolixity which the 
erroneous one has not, the incorrect one has grown 
into general use. A similar case is found in the 
use of you, when applied to but one person ; as, 

John, where have you been ? 
The people have been disposed to sacrifice sense 
to sound in phraseology. Hence instead of say- 
ing— 

u John, where hast thou been ?" 
they have adopted the substitute, 

" John, where have you been ?" 

1. "The jury has agreed" 

2. " John, where have you been ?" 

In both, there is a defect in sense. The defect 
in sense in the first, lies in asserting that one can 
make an agreement ; or, in other words, in inti- 
mating that it does not require as many as two to 
make an agreement. 

The defect, in sense, in the second, lies in 
naming, calling, or addressing two, or more, when 
but one is meant ? 

But do expressions of this kind, stand con- 
demned by the rules of grammar, as well as by 
the laws of reason? The first one frequently 
d oes — the second one rarely, if ever. 
" The jury have agreed." 
Now, as this noun denotes but one jury, we can 
as well say, he have agreed, as we can, the jury 
have agreed ! 

" The jury will remain out till they have agreed 
on a verdict." 

This is correct English — for the pronoun, they, 
does not represent the noun, jury, but the word 
members — 

" The jury will remain out till its members have 
agreed on a verdict." To be brief, men have fallen 
into error ; and being conscious of this error, they 
embrace the first opportunity to correct it — hence 
we use they instead of it — 

" The jury will remain out till they have agreed 
on a verdict." 

Why is they used ? because the common sense 
of the case confines the mind to the members of 
the jury. The word, they, therefore, does not 
stand for the word, jury, but for the word, mem- 
bers, which is constantly in the mind. 

If these nouns of multitude, are plural, why 
will they not take a plural adjective ; as, Six 
court ! These jury ! Those committee ! Three 
community \ [ Let those who say that nouns of 
rmiltitude, as they are called, are plural, show 
why these words reject all plural adjectives ! ! 



We should be glad to discuss every Rule in 
the Syntax of the old theory. We absolutely re- 
gret that a want of space prevents us from 
making any reflections upon the Prosody of the 
old theory. But we must deny ourselves this 
gratification. Had -we the opportunity which 
space could afford us, we would attempt to de- 
monstrate that the old school grammarians have 
produced a state in Rhetoric which they all incor- 
porate with their Grammars, that would be styled 
anarchy and misrule in any political government 
ever known to man. 

The vividness, force, strength, dignity, special 
brevity, and the embellishment which arises from 
imputing the import of one word to another, from 
introducing one thing as a mere index to another 
from taking a part for the whole, or the whole for 
a part, from inverting the meaning of words, from 
extravagant exaggerations, from introducing a 
series of tilings, or circumstances which gradually 
rise or fall, in dignity, upon a climactic scale, from 
contrasting contraries, from emphatically, and 
abruptly introducing something which is not con- 
nected with the main thing, from converting mere 
things into persons, from adding metaphor to 
metaphor, from bringing past events back into 
present time, from methodical stately arrange- 
ments of the words of a mono, or the monos of a 
sentence and from various other things, may be 
considered the graces of speech. These induements 
are to speech, what turns, trills, and shakes are to 
music. 

But the word, rhetoric, is not expressive of these 
graces of speech. 

The word, rhetoric, is made from the Greek, 
rheo, to speak, and technicos, technically, hence, 
means to speak, technically I That the applica- 
tion of this word to the doctrines of the indue- 
ments with which certain monos are imbued, has 
produced a vast amount of embarrasment to the 
learner of the English Language, is obvious from 
the utter inapplicability of the term. 

Nor is the use of the word, figure, as applied in 
Rhetoric, productive of much less difficulty to the 
learner than is the word, rhetoric. The word, 
figure, in Greek, is schema ; in Latin, habitum, 
vestitum, and signifies the apparel of the body ! 
But is there any obvious analogy between a 
man's apparel, and the following sentences which 
are called figures : 

1. " The sword is without:'' 

2. " They have Moses, and the prophets:'' 

3. The house is building. 

4. The kettle boils. 

5. Can the blind see ? 

6. Saul was swifter than an eagle. 



126 



APPEAL. 



CHAPTER XXIII. 

TRUTH, AND KNOWLEDGE. 

1. What is truth ? 2. What is knowledge ? 

Truth is a conformity of the thing signified to 
the sign used ; and knowledge is the apprehension 
of this conformity. 

Illustration : Three marks, 1 1 1, 

The phrase, " three marks" is the sign used. 
The three marks are the things signified. The 
numeral agreement of the marks with the sign 
used, is that conformity which constitutes truth ; 
and the apprehension of this conformity, is 
knowledge. Unless there is this conformity of 
the thing pointed out, to the sign employed, 
there is no truth ; and, as knowledge is the ap- 
prehension of truth; and, as there can be no truth 
in the absence of this conformity for the mind 
to apprehend, it follows that there is no knowledge 
in the mind where there is a want of this confor- 
mity of the thing denoted, to the sign used. This 
may be illustrated in the following scheme : Six 
marks, 1111. 

Here the sign used is " Six marks." But, as 
there are not six marks in the group denoted, 
there is no apprehension of truth in the case ; 
for that very conformity which constitutes truth, 
is wanting ! Now, there is truth in any art, or 
science in which there is a correspondence, a 
conformity, an agreement between the terms, de. 
Jinitions, rules, and remarks, and the principles 
of the art, or science: and the student who appre- 
hends this conformity, has knowledge; for the 
apprehension of truth is knowledge. 



Truth. 


Error. 


Error. 


1. Circle: 


1. Circle : 


1. Circles : 


O 


□ 


o 


2. Sauare : 


2. Square : 


2. Squares : 


a 


O 


a 


3. Triangle : 


3. Triangle : 


3. Triangles 


A 


1 1 


A 



It is seen, then, that truth is a conformity of 
the prototype to the simple, or complex sign 
which is used ; and that error is a want of a 
conformity of the prototype to the simple, or 
complex sign used. Now, the science of English 
grammar is a complex prototype , and the system 
which is presented in any book for the expression 
of this complex prototype, is the complex sign 
used. And in exact proportion to the confor- 
mity of this complex prototype to the complex 
sign employed for its expression, the old theory 
of English Grammar is true ; and in exact pro- 
portion to a want of this conformity, is this theory 
erroneous. To ascertain, then, to what extent 
this theory is true, or false, it will be necessary I 



to examine the doctrines, the principles of the 
complex prototype, and the significancy of the 
complex sign which is used for the expression of 
these doctrines, these principles. Into this exami. 
nation I have already entered with some degree 
of minuteness. And, if I have not conducted 
the discussion with the candour of a Christian, 
and with the skill of a logician, it is because these 
invaluable attributes are beyond my power of 
attainment. 

Having taken what may be denominated the 
first step in this discussion, I will pass on to the 
second ; and this I intend to take with great 



A DEFINITION. 

There is always something which makes the 
thing : and tins something is here called the esse 
of the thing. (Esse, to be.) The esse of a thing 
is that certain part which makes the thing to be. 
The esse is the sine qua non part. That is, the 
esse is that part without which the thing could not 
be what it is ; as, the spring of a watch, or the 
weights of a clock. And a definition is that pro- 
position which distinguishes, which points out the 
thing by its esse ; as, 

1. A watch is a time-piece which goes by a 
spring. 

2. A clock is a time-piece which goes by 
weights. 

1. That which is the esse of one thing, may not 
be the esse of another ; hence it does not follow 
because a spring is the esse of a watch, that it is 
the esse of a book. (Some books are bound with 
springs in their backs.) A time-piece without a 
spring, is not a watch : but a volume is a book 
without a spring. 

2. No thing has more than one esse. 

3. Every member of the same class must have 
the same esse. 

4. All the things which have the same esse, 
must belong to the same class. 

5. No things which have not the same esse can 
belong to the same class. 

1. It is the province of a definition to point out 
one class from another. Hence we may give a 
definition of man; but not of a man. 

2. It is the province of a description to point 
out one thing, or individual from another. Hence 
we describe a man ; but define man. A definition 
considers things in classes — but a description con- 
siders things as individuals. 

3. A definition can have no exception — a rule 
can have an exception. 

Let us now see whether the following proposi- 
tion is a definition of language, 

1. A Language, or Tongue is a set of words 
made use of by any nation, or people, to commu. 
nicate their thoughts to one another. — J. New 
berry. 



APPEAL. 



127 



Language is the instrument, or means of com- 
municating ideas. — Webster's Grammar. 

Language is a principal vehicle of thought. — G. 
Brown. 

Language, in its most extensive sense, compre- 
hends all significant signs by which animals 
communicate intelligence from one to another. — 

J. JoNES. 

It appears to me that grammarians have not 
been very happy in their attempts at defining a 
Language. They tell us in substance, that a 
Language is the medium through which men 
communicate their thoughts to each other. But 
it seems, from what appears to be a proper view 
of the subject, that a Language is the mere 
material out of which the medium for communi- 
cating thought is formed. It appears to me, that 
a sentence is the only medium through which men 
express their thoughts. If a man wishes to com- 
municate to me the fact, or the complex thought 
that, he is sick, he does not seize a Language, as 
a huntsman does a gun, as the means by which to 
accomplish his object. He makes a draft of three, 
or four words upon some language which we both 
understand, and forms these words into a sentence : 
and, through the medium of this sentence, he 
communicates the complex thought. 

" J am sick." 

Now, is the English Language the medium 
through which this thought is communicated, or is 
the sentence, " I am sick," this medium ? If 
this thought is communicated to me through the 
medium of the English Language, then, the sen- 
tence, " / am sick," is the English Language ! 
And, if this sentence is the English Language, 
the English Language has not quite so many 
words as Dr. Webster has enumerated ! The 
word, language, is not synonymous with the word, 
speech. In the syllabane, " a Language" the 
word, Language, does not contemplate words in a 
combined state, but in an isolated, detached state. 
The word, speech, however, contemplates words 
in a combined, a syntaxed condition. 

1. A language is the words from which any 
oommunit}', people, or nation forms that sentential 
medium through which they communicate their 
thoughts. A language is the material; and a 
sentence is the medium which is constructed from 
this material. The bricks, before employed by 
the mason, are as much the house itself, as are 
the isolated words the medium of communicating 
thought ! 

The following propositions are submitted as 
substitutes for the old definition of language : 

1. A Language is a set of words out of which 
a nation, a people, or a community constructs 
sentences for the communication of their ideas. 

2. A Language is the significant material out 
of which a community of people, constructs 
sentences for the expression of their thoughts. 



The esse of a language lies in the fact that it 
is the material out of which the veh icle of thought 
is constructed. That is, it is this relation of 
material to a sentence, the true vehicle of thought, 
which makes a set of verbal signs a language. 
The great principle is this, — whatever is employed 
as the material out of which sentences are formed, 
is a language. Hence, if sentences are constructed 
from pins, and needles ; pins, and needles are a 
language. 

What the materials of a carriage are to this 
vehicle of pleasure, language is to the vehicle 
of thought. And if the materials out of which 
a carriage can be made, can be denominated a 
carriage, then indeed can the unsyntaxed words, 
yes, precisely as they stand in the columns of the 
Spelling book, or the Dictionary, be calle-d the 
vehicle for the communication of thought ! Our 
grammarians, then, have committed the singular 
error of applying the name of the thing formed, to 
the materials out of which it is formed ! Nay, 
more, for they have ascribed, through the medium 
of this error, the very function, the very instru- 
mentality of the thing formed, to the materials 
out of which it is formed ! They say that Ian. 
guage is the medium of communicating ideas; / 
say that language is the mere material from 
which this medium is constructed ! In other 
words : t hey affirm that rags are the paper on 
which we write, and print : I say that rags are 
the materials out of which this paper is made ! 

1. The old: "Language is the vehicle of 
thought." 

2. The new : Language is the significant ma. 
terial out of which the vehicle of thought is 
constructed. 

Having stated, and illustrated my objections to 
the popular definition of language, I will make 
a few critical reflections upon the word, language. 

There are three grounds upon which sound ob- 
jections may be raised to the use of the word, 
language. The first ground is that this word is 
not calculated from its etymology, its derivation, 
to suggest, even in the slightest degree, the 
relation which a language holds to the mind. 
Words have an intimate connexion with the 
mind : they not only have imports, significations, 
which extend to the ideas of the mind, but they 
are created by the mind for the use of the mind : 
they are the material out of which that sentential 
medium is formed, through which minds inter- 
change their ideas, their thoughts. Every word 
in a language has a grasp upon some thought: 
and the moment the power of custom breaks a 
word's hold on thought, the word becomes obso. 
lete : it dies. And the reason why this state of 
death follows as a consequence, is that the very 
soul of a word is its connexion with thought : a 
word is a significant spirit, breathed into a shell, 
a framework of sound, ink, paint, or metal, and 



128 



APPEAL. 



is kept alive by its action upon thought. The 
meaning of the word, language, as derived 
{meaning derived) from the etymology of the 
word, is tongue, or something produced by the 
tongue .' Lingua, the tongue. If, then, the 
tongue could produce a pain by pressing upon 
any part of the mouth, this pain might with pro- 
priety be called a language ? A stove is called a 
Franklin, because it was produced by Franklin. 
A machine which illustrates the motions, and 
phases of the planets in their orbits, is called 
an Orrery, because the earl of Orrery had some- 
thing to do with this machine in its inceptive stage 
of formation. Upon the same principle the emo- 
tion of pain, or pleasure produced by the tongue in 
the lip or hand, may be denominated language. 
Lingua, the tongue. But suppose the lips, nose, 
teeth, palate, and larynx should contribute their 
aid in the production of this pain in the lip, or 
pleasure in the hand, would there be any more 
propriety in calling the emotion thus produced, 
language than larynx — any more propriety in 
naming this emotion in reference to the tongue, 
than in reference to the lips, the teeth, the nose, 
or the palate ? That there would not is proved 
from the fact that the Hebrews named language 
in reference to the lips. This is obvious from the 
marginal rendering of the word, language, in the 
Old Testament. For instance : " And the whole 
earth was of one language, and of one speech." 

Margin : And the whole earth was " of one 
lip.'''' 

Is it said that the tongue holds a higher rank in 
the production of speech than any other organ em- 
ployed — and that, therefore, the speech takes the 
name of this organ in preference to that of any 
other ? Without the larynx, no voice, no sounds, 
could be produced. As the loss of the tongue would 
not be so fatal to speech as that of the larynx, it fol- 
lows that the larynx is the more important organ of 
the two ; consequently, if comparative importance 
in instrumentality is to decide which name 
is to be applied, words would be called, not 
language but larynx i Let us now attempt to en- 
force this fact; the machine which is used to 
illustrate the motions, and phases of the planets in 
their orbits, was invented by George Graham, from 
whom Rowley, a workman, borrowed it and made 
one for the Earl of Orrery, after whom it was 
named by Sir Richard Steele. Now if this ma- 
chine must be named after any one who had any 
thing to do with it in its inceptive stage of exist- 
ence, it should certainly be called after George 
Graham. Justice, taste, art, science, and judg- 
ment, therefore, demand that the machine which 
is now called an Orrery, should be called a George, 
gian. or a Gra-ham.i-an. And upon the same 
principle let the set of words of which we construct 
sentences, be called a larynx. But reflection has 
suggested a better name for this astronomical 
machine, than either Gra-ham-i-an, or Orrery .' and 



the world has applied it; for these very machines 
are now styled planetariums. This is right, this 
is tasteful, scientific, and judicious. This machine 
is connected with the planets, and it should be 
named in reference to them. I might propose 
something similar: I might propose, not to dis- 
card the word, language, but to give a new name 
to our words, which shall express their relation to 
the mind in the same way, that planetarium 
expresses the relation of the Orrery to the planets. 
Instead, therefore, of naming the medium of the 
mind in reference to the muscular covering of the 
teeth, as did the Hebrews, or in reference to the 
instrument by which the dog laps his drink, as 
have the descendants of the Anglo Saxons, it, and 
the significant verbal materials of which it is com- 
posed, might be called Phrenod. Phrenod is con- 
structed from the Greek elements, phren, the mind, 
and odos, a way, a means, a medium, and signifies 
the exalted highway over which mind travels to 
mind. 



CHAPTER XXIV 

THE WORD, GRAMMAR. 

Having disposed of the word, language, and of 
the different definitions which the old school gram- 
marians have given of language itself, I shall 
make a few reflections upon that word which they 
have employed as the name of the constructive 
principles of language. That word is grammar. 

"Grammar" is from the Greek word, gramma, 
which means a letter. 

The word, grammar, has been applied, up to 
the present time to all the constructive principles 
of language for no better reason than that, in its 
Greek costume, it is a sign of a mere elementary 
part of a printed word ! The word, orthography, 
however, which is so general in its derivative im- 
port, that it must extend to all the constructive 
principles of printed, and written speech, is 
brought down to the mere formation of letter 
words. 

The word, orthography, is just as applicable to 
the formation of entire sentences, entire paragraphs, 
entire chapters, and entire books, as to the forma- 
tion of single words. 

This word is derived from orthos, right, and 
grapho, to virite. Hence there is good reason 
why it should not be applied to the just formation 
of entire books — for looks are written as well as 
words ! The restriction of the word orthography 
to the formation of mere words, and the exten- 
sion of the word, grammar, the name of a mere 
letter, to all the constructive principles of language, 
shows that little pains have been taken to place 



APPEAL. 



129 



the science of grammar upon a philosophic 
basis. 

Would it not be well to take the following, 
chr.nge into consideration, — 

English orthography is the art of using the Eng- 
lish language with propriety. English orthography 
b divided into four parts, viz. Grammar, Etymo- 
logy, Syntax, and Prosody . 

Grammar teaches the principles of forming 
words from letters. {Gramma, a letter.) 

The world, however, have not been satisfied with 
one name for this science; men have attempted 
to relieve the word grammar, by the aid of the 
word, philology I Hence this science is some- 
times denominated English Grammar, and some- 
times English philology! Philology is derived 
from phi-le o, to love, and logos, a word, and sig- 
nifies a love of words ! But what avast difference 
there is between the construction of words, and the 
love which a man may have for them ! ! This 
word is defined in our dictionaries in the following 
manner : 

PHILOLOGY. 

1. •' A love of words, or a desire to know the 
origin and construction of language." 

There is nothing in the etymology of the word, 
which fully justifies the sense which is given in 
the following part of this definition : 

" Or a desire to know the origin, and construc- 
tion of language." 

But still I am disposed to say that I do not 
think the giving of this sense to the word, is alto- 
gether without foundation. 

2. " That branch of literature which compre- 
hends a knowledge of the etymology, or origin, 
and combination of Words." 

Here I think is a total departure from the ety- 
mology of the word : philology is here defined to 
be a branch of literature ! that is, the love for a 
science is converted into the science itself! ! The 
word philology, means nothing but a love for 
words : upon what principle, then, can this word 
become the name of the science of words. Philo- 
logy is constructed from the Greek words, phi-le-o, 
to love, and logos, a word. But to justify the 
above use of the wo'rd, philology, phileo should 
mean, not love, but science ! Is the analogy be- 
tween love, and science so very great, that the 
very word which means one can be applied to the 
other without an abuse of language ?" 

3. " Grammar, the construction of sentences, 
the use of words in language ? 

Here we are informed that philology is the use 
of words .' Is there any thing in art, or science, 



which this word, philology, cannot be made to 
mean ? 

4. " Criticisyn, the interpretation of authors." 

5. " The affinities of different languages." 

6. " Whatever relates to the history or present 
state of languages." 

7. " Rhetoric, poetry, history, and antiquities." 
Rhetoric has to do with figures ; poetry with 

rhyme, and measure ; history with peace, and 
war, defeats, and victories ; and antiquities with 
the monuments, coins, inscriptions, fragments, 
offices, habiliments, weapons, manners, ceremonies, 
and games of ancient times ! Thus the word, 
philology, which, from its derivation, can mean 
nothing but a love of words, is made to range 
through the past, and the present, in search of 
every thing within these two epochs, upon which 
the human mind can fix ! Yes, the tower of 
Babel, with its erection, and destruction on the 
memorable plains of Shinar, and the simple art 
of English grammar, are all scientifically brought 
into the same category, and all, most distinctly 
marked, clearly parcelled out, by this one word, 
philology 1 1 Yes, the rash, inglorious expedition 
ot the confident Mardonius, with the design of 
Darius, his father-in-law, to invade Greece, and 
avenge himself on the Athenians, and the simple 
art of English Grammar, are all reduced upon a 
plan of methodical simplicity, to the same class, 
and all distinguished by this one ear mark, philo- 
logy '. Nor is this all, for the ancient gods and 
goddesses, with the innumerable train of events 
over which they presided, are all, by the magical 
powers of this one word, philology, made to hold 
the relation of brotherhood with the simple art of 
English grammar ! ! And now, upon what prin- 
ciple in the use of words, has the word philology, 
received this mighty breadth of application ? la 
its range of application founded upon that mean- 
ing which the word derives from its two Greek 
elements, phileo, and logos ? Or is the unlimited 
application of this word, placed upon some analogy 
existing between the love for a word, and all crea- 
tion besides. But what analogy there is between 
the tower of Babel, and a love of a word, or be- 
tween the love for a word, and the confusion of 
speech, is a point in the doctrine of similarities, 
which ordinary minds can hardly discover ! True, 
if, as some writers say, this imperishable pile was 
divided into eight separate towers, there may he a 
striking analogy between the entire temple, and a 
language which is divided into ten parts of 
speech ! But, then, what has this point of analogy 
to do with a love of a word!? If, too, as all wri- 
ters state, this tower was above half a mile in 
circumference, and of a vast height, it must have 
borne a close analogy to the hill of science, and 
consequently, may well be denoted by the word, phi- 
lology .' '. 



130 



APPEAL. 



CHAPTER XXV. 



DEFINITION OF GRAMMAR. 



1. " English Grammar is the art of speaking, 
and writing- the English language with propri- 
ety," — Murray. 

2. " English Grammar is the art of speaking, 
and writing the English language with pro- 
priety." — Lennie. 

3. " English Grammar is the art of speaking, 
and writing the English language with pro- 
priety." — Comly. 

4. " English Grammar is the art of speaking, 
and writing the English language correctly." — 
Goold Brown. 

5. " English Grammar teaches us to speak, and 
write the English language correctly." — Roswell 
C. Smith. 

6. " English Grammar is the art of speaking, 
and writing the English language with pro- 
priety." — French. 

The first remark which may be made upon the 
above definitions, is that each obviously violates a 
plain principle of the very science which they all 
attempt in vain to define. That they should fail 
of defining the art of grammar, is nothing strange : 
nor is it any thing singular, that they should all 
be found faulty in construction. But, that they 
should all be marred with the same impropriety, 
is not only singular, but somewhat surprising. 
The use of the three words, speaking, and writing, 
lor the word, using, is a pleonasm which is not so 
singular in itself as in its multiplications. In cor- 
recting Mr. Murray, I shall of course, correct 
those whom he has led into error in construction, 
and doctrine : 

English Grammar is the art of using the 
English language with propriety. 

The objection to the doctrine of this definition 
of Grammar, is that it embraces Ep-e-ology, the 
whole science of words. The definition embraces 
Epe-de-col-o-gy, which is taught by a Dictionary, 
and Rhetoric, which is taught by a Rhetoric. 
(Book. II.) 

That the above definitions of grammar have led 
to erroneous views upon the true boundary lines 
of this science, is obvious from the following defi- 
nitions of it : 

1. "Grammar is the science of language. The 
object of grammar is to investigate the principles 
of speech, and to teach the right use of words." — 
J. Jones. 

2. " Grammar is the science of language." — 
Samuel Kirkham. 

" Grammar is the science of Language." — John 
S. Hart. 

These three definitions have obviously sprung 
from the lax phraseology of Murray's attempt to 
define this science. He says that, 



" English grammar is the art of speaking, and 
writing the English language with propriety." 

Whereas upon a very little investigation it will 
be seen that English grammar is but a mere part 
of the art of speaking, and writing the English 
language with propriety. The science of language 
respects all the principles of speech. To learn, 
or to teach the art, or science of using any lan- 
guage with propriety, as many as three books are 
necessary ; namely, a Grammar, a Dictionary, 
and a Rhetoric. 

1. A Grammar teaches that part of the art of 
using a language with propriety, which consists 
of the formation, the modification, and the 
arrangement of words. 

2. A Dictionary teaches that part of the art 
of using a language with propriety, which consists 
of the literal import or meaning of words. 

3. A Rhetoric teaches that part of the art of 
using a language with propriety, which consists 
of the exact adaptation of the words to the nature 
of the occasion, and to the figurative character of 
the ideas intended to be expressed by the writer, 
or speaker. 

Mr. Murray has divided the whole of this art 
" into four parts, viz. Orthography, Etymology, 
Syntax, and Prosody." 

Now in defining these four parts, the author 
loses more than half of what is included in his 
definition of English grammar! 

1. "Orthography teaches the nature, and 
powers of letters, and the just method of spelling 
words." 

2. " Etymology is the second part of grammar, 
which treats of the different sorts of words, their 
various modifications, and their derivation." 

3. " Syntax is the third part of grammar, which 
treats of the agreement, and construction of words 
in a sentence." 

4. " Prosody is the fourth part of grammar, 
which teaches the true pronunciation of words, 
comprising accent, quantity, emphasis, pause, and 
tone, and the laws of versification." 

These four parts, as here set out, do not com- 
prise even half as much as the entire definition as 
given by Murray, and his followers. But the 
parts ought to be equal to the whole ! The deji. 
nition embraces ail that can be said of language ; 
but the parts into which this definition is divided, 
omit perspicuity of expression, purity of style, 
propriety of language, precision of words, and 
phrases, clearness of sentences, unity of sen- 
tences, strength of sentences, figures of speech 
and punctuation I ! Mr. Murray himself enu- 
merates these branches, and warmly recom- 
mends all to attend to them as soon as they 
shall have acquired a knowledge — of what ? Why, 
a knowledge of English Grammar ! i That isi 
after the student shall have acquired the art of 
speaking and writing the English language with 
propriety, he ought to attend to these parts that 



APPEAL. 



131 



he may be able to speak, and write it with 
accuracy 1 ! 

" English Grammar is the art of speaking-, and 
writing the English language with propriety.''' 

This definition includes too much ; or the works 
which present it, do not include enough. The 
definition says that English Grammar is the whole 
art of using the English language with propriety; 
and yet the very books, the very English Gram- 
mars which give this definition, make no attempt 
to teach the Dictionary meaning of words ! If the 
old definition of English Grammar is sound, there 
should be added to the works which are called 
English Grammars, a full Dictionary, and a 
complete Rhetoric : the literal meaning of words 
can not be learned without a Dictionary; and 
the figurative meaning of them cannot be acquired 
without a Rhetoric. 

Let us see what Dr. Webster says of Gram- 
mar. 

6. " Grammar, as a science, treats of the natu- 
ral connexion between ideas and words which are 
the signs of ideas, and dcvelopes the principles of 
all languages !" 

The above is a better account of Ep-e- de-col o-gy 
than of grammar ? Ep-e-de-col-o-gy is the science 
which treats of the (not natural) connexion of 
words with ideas, and developes the significant 
principles of all languages. 

Dr. Webster proceeds : 

"These principles, (principles of language) are 
not arbitrary, nor subject to change, but fixed, and 
permanent, being founded on facts, and distinc- 
tions which are founded by nature ! Thus the 
distinction between the sexes, between things, and 
their qualities, between the names of substances, 
and (the names) of their actions, or motions; 
between unity, and plurality; between present, 
and future, time and some other distinctions, are 
founded in nature, and give rise to different 
species of words, and to various inflections in all 
languages.'' 

Nothing is more unsound than the doctrine that 
the principles of language are not subject to 
change. Mr. Webster has confounded the subject 
of language with that of nature. And I presume 
that when he declares that language is not arbi- 
trary, he intends to say that nature is not arbi- 
trary, but fixed, and permanent! That is, the 
sexes are not the arbitrary conventional produc- 
tions of men, not the changeable creatures of 
human communities, but the fixed, permanent 
gifts, or distinctions of nature herself '. Or in 
other words, the fact that John is a man, and not 
a woman, and that Sarah is a woman, and not a 
man, is not the result of any conventional agree- 
ment among men, but of nature, and of her alone ! 
If, however, this distinguished grammarian means 
to tell us that the fact that the word, John, repre- 
sents a male, and not a. female, and the fact, that 
'the word, Sarah, is the name of a female, and not 



of a male, is not arbitrary, is not changeable, but 
is fixed and permanent, in short, is the result of 
nature, I must dissent. Indeed there would be 
much difficulty in persuading me, even by all tho 
means that can be brought to bear upon this 
subject, that nature has any agency in fixing the 
application of the word, John, to a male, and the 
word, Sarah, to a female. Nothing could convince 
me that this is the fact, but ocular demonstration, 
of the attachment, the appendage, of these words 
to their respective sexes at the very time of their 
birth! I must see that nature has fixed John to 
a male, and Sarah to a female by her own type 
before I can agree with this great scholar in 
ascribing to nature an uncontrollable sway over 
the science of speech ! If words are produced, 
inflected, modified, and applied by nature, how 
does it happen that the same word has so many 
significations as this learned author has given to 
the word, philology ? Is nature as various in 
character as he has made "philology" in mean- 
ing ! ? How does it happen too, if words are 
under the control of nature, that the same word 
is applied both to males, and females ; as, person, 
servant, teacher, who,which, bird, child, friend, &c? 
Do we find nature thus duplicating the functions 
of her acknowledged works ? Does she require 
the eye to see, and hear too ? Will it be said that 
the being who is called a person, has no sex, and, 
consequently, the word, person, is under no con- 
trol from any natural gender ? This can not be 
urged. 

But, if nature is the basis of the structure of 
speech, how is it that not only words become 
obsolete, but inflections also ? What has caused 
the inflection, den, in the word, stride, to fall into 
decay — stridden ? What rude hand has so far 
assailed nature, the basis of speech, as to wrench 
the den inflection of ride from its natural place — 
ridden ? What, too, has arrested the deflection, 
writ, on its way through life ? Nature still lives, 
and should afford succour to all her children ! 
" Writ," was once the flourishing, blooming form 
into which write threw itself to mark past time ! 
If this past-tense form of write, was the work of 
nature, and nature has not sustained it, who will 
predict the perpetuity of write itself! 

It seems that nature, or men, once proposed the 
word, disopinion, to be used in the sense of differ- 
ence of opinion, Now, did nature put her veto 
upon the passage of this proposition ; or did man's 
frigid look of disapprobation so benumb this verbal 
bantling that it had no power to creep into 
manhood ? And what is it which rejected the 
following verbal deformity, bescumber ? B. Jonson 
proposed it — and did man, or did nature, or did 
both flee from it ! Think you, if the community 
of England had taken this novus verbum into their 
lkerary service, that nature, under a Quo War- 
ranto, would have proceeded to inquire of that 
distinguished people, by what warrant, by what 



132 



APPEAL. 



authority, by what right they had made it a part 
of the diction of that far-famed island ? 

A proposition has been made also to make 
besee a word ! This alphabetic concretion, how- 
ever, has not become a part of our language. The 
proposition was made by Wickliffe. But did he 
make the proposition to nature ? No, no. He 
made it to the community of which he was a 
member — he made the proposition to the human 
family to adopt this alphabetic terror as a part of 
their speech. He made the proposition by using 
this alphabetic convention ; and his race rejected 
his proposition by not using it 



CHAPTER XXVI. 

ETYMOLOGY. \ 

I shall introduce the subject of Etymology, by 
citing a few of the many definitions which differ- 
ent writers have given of this part of the old sys- 
tem of English Grammar. 

1. " The second part of grammar is Etymology, 
which treats of the different sorts of words, their 
various modifications, and their derivations." — 
Murray. 

2. " Etymology treats of the derivation of words 
from their radicals, or primitives, and of their 
various inflections or modifications to express 
number, person, case, sex, time, and mode." — 
Webster. 

3. " Etymology treats of the different parts of 
speech, and their classes, and their modifications." 
G. Brown. 

4. "The second part of grammar is Etymology, 
which treats of the different sorts of words, or 
parts of speech, and their variations." — Joilv 
Comly. 

5. " Etymology teaches how to form all the 
words in the English language, into several grand 
divisions, or sorts, commonly called parts of 
speech. 

" It includes a knowledge of the meaning and 
use of words : also their different changes and 
derivations. 

" Etymology signifies the origin or pedigree of 
words." — Smith. 

Before I consider the word, etymology, it may 
be well enough to make a few remarks upon the 
apparent want of harmony in sentiment, or doc- 
trine, which is obvious, in the above definitions. 
Mr. Murray says that the second part of grammar 
is etymology, and that it treats of the different 
sorts of words, their various modifications, and 
their derivations. Mr. Webster, however, rejects 
the main doctrine in this definition ; for he confines 
etymology to the derivation of words from their 
radicals, and to their various inflections to make a 
distinction in number, case, person, sex, time, and 



mode. But Goold Brown not only makes ety- 
mology divide words into parts of speech, but he 
makes it sub divide the parts of speech into 
classes. Mr. Smith, however, affirms that ety- 
mology divides the words of the English language 
into several grand divisions., or sorts only. Hence 
according to this author, the distinction of transi- 
tive, and intransitive, passive, and neuter, regular, 
and irregular, proper, and common, Sfc, 8$c., does 
not fall under etymology. To this he adds, " It 
includes a knowledge of the meaning, and use of 
words !" So far as utility is concerned, Smith's 
definition is a dead letter. The first part strug- 
gles out of existence from starvation, the second 
from strangulation. The first part sips—it takes 
in a mere item of etymology ; but the second 
attempts to swallow down the entire science of 
language ! "English Grammar," says this author, 
" teaches us to speak, and write the English Lan- 
guage correctly." 

1. Etymology includes a knowledge of the 
meaning and use of words : 

2. English Grammar teaches us the meaning, 
and use of words ! 

What is the difference between these two defi- 
nitions ? Let him that can tell the difference 
between two errors on the same subject, answer ! 
Or what is the difference between Smith's defi- 
nition of etymology, and Pierce's definition of the 
whole science of English grammar ? 

1. "Etymology includes a knowledge of the 
meaning, and use of words." — Smith. 

2. " English Grammar consists of directions for 
speaking and writing the English language 
correctly." — Pierce. 

He that can subtract one cipher from another, 
can tell the difference between these two vain 
attempts at a definition ! 

Let me now consider the word, 

etymology. 

This word is made from the Greek, etumon, 
a true original, and from logos, doctrine, a 
word, &c. 

The first part of the word, etymology, is etumon. 
Now observe, etumon does not mean a word, but 
it means any thing which happens to be the true 
original of another thing. For instance, the 
first painting from which a second has been 
taken, is an etumon. Observe again, the only 
part of the word, etymology, which conveys an}' 
allusion to words, is logy, or ology. 

This part, ology, is derived from logos ; and, as 
logos, may mean word, the word etymology, may 
be applied to words. But to what kind of words 
may the word, etymology, be applied ? This ques- 
tion is answered in this part, etumon. Authority 
is derived from logos, to apply the word, etumon, to 
words ; yet not to any, and all words ; for, while 
the word, logos, gives authority for the application 



APPEAL. 



133 



of the word, etumon, to rrords, the word, etumon, 
has the authority, the power to decide the kind of 
words! And, as Ihe meaning- of the word, 
etumon, is the power which it exerts in making 
this decision, the only kind of words to which 
etumon can be applied, is that class which is com- 
posed of true originals. This truth Mr. Webster 
well understood at the time he penned his defi- 
nition of the second part of English grammar : 
in that definition this truth is clearly recognised. 
Hear what he there says : 

" Etymology treats of the derivation of words 
from their radicals " — from their true originals. 

The word, etymology, is legitimately applied to 
the doctrine, or principles of deriving one word 
from another ; and beyond this, it can not be ap- 
plied with much propriety. 

Etymology may be defined to be that part of 
the science of language, which teaches the laws, 
or principles of constructing new words from old 
ones. 

I. Principle. 

In forming one new word from two, or more 
old ones, each old word should if possible be of 
the same language. 

This principle is observed in the formation of 
the word, etymology, from its two originals, etu- 
mon, and logos. 

Nor is this principle less obvious in the source 
of the word, homicide. This word is made from 
homo, a man, a human being, and c<zdo, to kill; 
and these elements are both Latin. 

In the formation of the word, hexangular, 
however, there is a violation of this principle. The 
two elements from which this word is formed, are 
the Greek, hex six, and the Latin, angulus, a corner. 
Or, as Webster has it, from the Greek, hex, and 
the English, angular. But as this word can be 
formed entirely from Greek elements, this obli- 
quity from a great principle in etymology, is 
without excuse. It may be formed from the 
Greek, hex, six, and from gonia, a corner : hex. 
gonial, or hex-ag-onal. 

II. Principle. 

In forming one new word from one, or more old 
ones, as much of the old should be retained as 
possible. 

This principle is illustrated in the retention of 
the silent h, in diphthong, and triphthong; the 
silent g, in gnomon ; also in the retention of the 
ph, and h in phthisic. Diphthong is from the 
Greek, diphthongos ; tripthong is formed from 
triphthongos ; gnomon from gnomon ; and phthisic 
from phthisis. Had no regard been paid to this rule 
in Etymology, these words would stand as follows. 
Dipthong, tripthong, nomon, tisic. 

In the formation of frenzy, frenetic, and some 
others, there is a violation of this rule. These 



words are from the Greek, phreneticos, and the 
substitution of/ for ph is contrary to a well- 
known etymological principle. 

III. Principle. 

In forming words in which sub is a prefix, b is 
changed for p, where the body of the word be- 
gins with p ; for m, where it begins with m ; 
and for/, where it begins with/. 

This principle is illustrated in the formation of 
the following words : 

Sup-ply, from sub, and pleo, Sup-plicate, from 
sub, and plico, Su/-/ix, from sub, and Jigo, Su/- 
/late, from sub, and Jlo, Su?n-mons, from sub. 
moneas. 

Perhaps I have already extended these prin- 
ciples beyond what may be deemed necessary 
to the accomplishment of the object for which 
they have been introduced. Still, however, I 
wish to subjoin the following principle, to which I 
must invite close attention. 

IV. Principle. 

The signification of ihe parent word, should be 
similar to that of the derived one. Or, 

The signification of the new word, should be 
similar to that of the old. Or, 

The significant character of the new word, 
should find a sound basis in the significant charac- 
ter of the old one. 

The rejection of this principle is the adoption 
of the doctrine that new words may be formed 
from nothing but sounds, or letters. In other 
words, he that denies the soundness of this 
principle, advocates the formation of new words 
from materials totally destitute of signification! 
If we reject this principle, the only source from 
which new words can be derived is the alphabet, 
and unmeaning sounds ! If then an author has an 
idea for which he has no sign, he would have 
nothing to do in procuring one but to give a new 
combination of alphabetical, or rudimental charac. 
ters. Upon this plan of forming new words, we 
might have ol, dreed, ing, ed, en, freqendize, oold, 
vek, gead, fyc, as words. Would any man sanc- 
tion this method of word-making ? O, no ! Yet, 
there is no difference between this method of 
forming words, and that by which thousands have 
been introduced into our language ! 

Let me repeat the principle which I wish to 
illustrate, and enforce : 

" The significant character of the parent word 
should form a sound basis for the significant 
character of the new one." 

Let us first inquire what constitutes this " sound 
basis." The sound basis mentioned in this impor- 
tant principle in etymology, is similarity in mean, 
ing. Hence the three propositions in which this 
principle is expressed, differ in nothing but form. 



134 



APPEAL 



Let me now submit a few words which have the 
sanction of this principle. 

I. Aphony. (Greek, a, not, and phone, a voice.) 
Aphony, without a voice, having no voice. 
The first part (a) of this word, is a Greek nega- 
tive ; the second part, phony, is formed from the 
Greek word, phone, which means voice. Hence it 
is obvious that the significant character of aphony, 
has a sound base in the significant character of 
the original words from which it is formed. 

II. Tornado. (Latin, tornatus.) 

Tornado, a whirlwind. 

The Latin word, torno, from the perfect parti- 
ciple of which, torna do is formed, signifies to tarn, 
or to go round like a wheel. Hence the meaning 
of tornado is fairly derived from the import of its 
true original. 

III. Atheist. (Greek, a, not, and theos, God.) 

Atheist, one who denies the being of a God. 

From the Greek, a, not, and theos, God. The 
base of the import of atheist, is sound enough. 

Let me now give some instances in which the 
meaning of the derived word, has no sound basis 
in the import of the parent word. 

I. Article. (Latin, articulus, a joint.) 
1. Article, an article, of agreement, or other 
things which serve to connect. 

As this word is derived from articulus, a joint, 
its application to an instrument of writing is sane- 
tioned by its etymology : the joint connects the 
two parts of the limb : and the instrument of 
writing connects the parties. Hence this instru- 
ment may be called an article. The instrument 
of writing is the joint between the two parties. 

This word is also properly applied to a clause ; 
for a clause of an instrument of writing, serves to 
connect what precedes it, and what follows it. 
Here we have the idea of the joint : articulus, a 
joint. But is there any thing in the import of the 
Latin, articulus, which justifies the application of 
the word, article, to a, an, and the ? Do these 
parts of speech resemble joints ? Had the old 
school grammarians applied the name, article, to 
that part of speech which they call a verb, to that 
which they call a conjunction, or to that which 
they denominate a. preposition,! should feel bound 
to admit the legitimacy of their application. In 
the verb, conjunction, and preposition, there may 
be seen a connective character. This may be 
seen by omitting them in the following instances : 

1. John loves Sarah. John Sarah. 

2. The arms of John. Arms John. 

3. I called John, for I wanted him. 1 called 
John, I wanted him. 

1. As the name of a clause, in an instrument of 
writing, &c. " article " must be considered a 
word. But, as the name of a, an, and the, " arti. 
cZe" can not be considered a word any more than 



ol, dreed, or any other combination of letters, 
formed directly from the alphabet I It seems to 
me that a combination of sounds, or a combina- 
tion of letters, can not be a word, unless it, (the 
combination) derives a significant character from 
tbe very elements out of which it, (the combination) 
is formed ! Is it true that men of letters do re- 
cognise certain combinations of sounds, and letters 
which can lay no claim to any import, to any 
meaning whatever, except that which this, or that 
individual may have affixed to them as words 
provided these combinations are formed from 
some older combinations which are considered 
words ? What, then, does the phrase, '■'■forming a 
new word,' 1 '' or coining new words mean ? Does 
this phrase mean the derivation of nothing but 
the mere body of a new word from the old word ? 
To derive a word is not only to form the body of 
the new word, but to derive the import, the mean- 
ing of the new word from the old ! Can, for ex- 
ample, the word, plural, be derived from pluralis, 
without bringing along with it the plural import 
of pluralis ? Would not the application of plural 
to but one thing, destroy all idea that it is derived 
from the Latin, pluralis ? 

The moment plural is applied to what is incon- 
sistent with the Latin, pluralis, it ceases to be a 
derivative from pluralis ! If you apply plural as 
the name of light, or darkness, you render it an 
arbitrary combination of letters, formed directly 
from the alphabet itself. Away with the idea, 
then, that the " pluraV thus applied, would be our 
legitimately applied plural, by which we signify 
more than one. It would not only be our plural, 
but it would not be brother to ours ; It would not 
descend from the same parent. Indeed, it is a 
slander upon verbal pedigree to say that the 
derived word must find its body in some well- 
formed Greek, or Latin original, but that it may 
find its soul, its vital spark, in convenience, neces- 
sity, caprice, or ignorance ! A new word, then, 
may be defined to be, 

A frame-work of letters, or a frame-work of 
sounds, whose form, and whose signification find 
a sound basis in the original word, or words from 
which this frame- work is formed. 

1. Immaculate, not having a moral blemish. 
This word is formed from in, not, or without, 

and macula, a spot. This verbal frame-work 
finds a sound basis for its form, and for its mean- 
ing in the original words from which it is formed. 

2. Immure, to imprison, to put within walls. 
This verbal frame-work is formed from in, 

within, and murus, a wall, and finds a sound 
basis for its form, and import, in these original 
words. 

3. Timous, early. — Bacon. 

Lord Bacon wished to form a word which 
should signify early. For this purpose he subjoins 
ous to the word, time ; time-ous. But, as ous does 
not mean early, nor any thing like it, how can 



APPEAL. 



135 



time-ous signify early ? If the meaning of the 
word, time, derives any qualification from this 
suffix, ous, it must derive that which the import 
of ous is calculated to impart. Now, ous imports 
partaking of, consisting of, resembling, or, full of. 
Thus slander with ous affixed, means, not early 
slander, but partaking - of, consisting- of slander ; as, 
the report was slanderous. Tumultuous signifies 
full of tumult. The word, time-ous, must mean, 
not early, but consisting of time, partaking of 
time, resembling time, or, full of time. Ti?nous as 
defined by JBaccn has no sound significant basis 
in time : therefore the word, timous, as meaning 
early, if it is a word, has never been derived from 
time I Bacon- pretends to derive it from time : 
but he may as well pretend to derive it from gold, 
from wood ! The signification which Bacon gives 
timous was never in the word, time : hence this 
import could never have been derived from the 
word, time. 

4. Orthography, the art of writing words ac- 
curately. 

This frame-work of letters, is formed from the 
Greek, orthos, right, and grapho, to write. That 
this word finds a sound basis in its original ele- 
ments for its shape, for its form, can not be dis- 
puted : Orthography, orthos-grapho. The person 
of the offspring resembles the person of the parent. 
But in what way a sound basis for the meaning 
of the derivative, is to be found in the primitives, 
is not at all obvious. Orthos means right, accu- 
rate ; grapho signifies to write, without the least 
intimation what is to be written ! Did grapho sig- 
nify not only to write, but to write words, then 
indeed a sound basis for the pretended meaning 
of orthography could be found in its original ele- 
ments ! But as we may write letters, sentences, 
deeds, agreements* histories, travels, books, and 
lives as well as icords, where is the authority for 
confining the word orthography to the writing of 
words ? The true import of orthography is the 
just, the right formation of any thing whatever 
which can be formed by the act of writing. Let 
us endeavour to bring this point to a sound test. 
Let us, then, suppose that some recent production 
has been picked up in which there are numerous 
strange things, and that among them is found the 
following word which the writer pretends he has 
constructed from orthos, and grapho : 

Orthofic. 

What ! orthofic ! Orthofic, derived from orthos, 
and grapho ! I What punishment would a literary 
court inflict upon the author, of this crime in ety- 
mology ? Suppose him to be before Lord Bacon 
himself ! His Lordship would tremble with indig- 
nation ; and the identity of the culprit would con- 
stitute the form, and substance of the entire trial! 
But when the question of form should be ad- 
dressed by his lordship, " What have you to say 
why sentence should nut be pronounced against 



you ?" would there not be some cogency in the 
following reply ? 

"If your Lordship's erudition can place your 
Lordship's offences above the law, may not my 
ignorance place mine within the mercy of its 
ministers? If my pretension that orthofic is 
formed from orthos, and grapho, is to banish me 
from the literary world, what should become of 
your Lordship's peruke for your Lordship's pre- 
tension that your Lordship had derived timous as 
importing early, from the word, time, and that 
too by affixing ous ?" If timous means early, its 
etymology is obscure indeed ! And, if orthofic has 
been constructed from orthos, and grapho, its 
workmanship is bad indeed. 

Let us now apply the definition of a new word 
to the word, etymology. 

A new word is a frame-work of letters, or a 
frame- work of sounds, whose form, and significa- 
tion find a sound basis in the original word, or 
words from which this verbal frame-work is said 
to be formed. 

Now, observe, it is said that the word, etymology, 
is constructed from etumon, and logos. Hence 
etumon, and logos are the older words: therefore 
they are called the old words, or the original 
words from which the new word, etymology, is 
constructed. Let us in the first instance compare 
the form of the new word with the form of the 
old one : 

NEW. OLD. 

Etymology etumon-logos. 

So far as the similarity inform is competent to 
render this derivation of the word, etymology, 
probable, the position that etymology is formed 
from etumon-logos, is well sustained. The selected 
original elements certainly resemble in form, the 
word, etymology. But let me endeavour to make 
myself better understood on the doctrine of the 
analogy in form between the originals, and the 
derivatives. The original words are the last on 
which the new word must be made : and as the 
shoe must resemble the last in form, on which it 
is made, so must the new word resemble the old 
one, from which it is derived. 

I have said that the old word is the last on 
which the new word is shaped: the old words 
are not only the last on which the new word 
must be partially shaped, but they are to a very 
considerable extent, the very materials out of 
which the new word is formed. Let us, then, 
compare the shoe, and the last, first in a mere 
frame-work, and secondly, in a significant point 
of view. 

1. The last: etumon-logos. 

2. The shoe : etymology. 

Let us now see whether the new word has re- 
tained a tolerable degree of the signification of 
the old ones. If this is not the case, it must 
follow that the presented last is not that on, by, 



136 



APPEAL. 



and from which the presented word has been 
formed. And indeed, if this is not the case, 
it might follow also that this particular shoe, ety- 
mology, has been formed directly from the alpha- 
bet, without the aid of any last whatever. 

Let us turn our attention once more to the 
exact import of the original words from which it 
is pretended that the word, etymology, has been 
formed. Etumon means a true original. It may 
be a true original paper, painting, statement, 
agreement, &c. 

'•'■Logos''' means a word. The word, etymology, 
then, considered as the offspring of etumon-logos, 
must be confined to the sort of words to which 
etumon-logos is applied : or it must be confined to 
some process, doctrine, or principles which belong 
exclusively to this sort of words. "Logos" also 
means doctrine : hence, the word, etymology, may 
mean the doctrine of words. But it cannot mean 
the doctrine of all words: it can be applied to the 
doctrine of true original words. That is, words 
from which new words are made. " Etymology" 
then, is applied to the doctrine, to the principles 
of forming old words into new ones. The old 
school grammarians, however, apply it, not to the 
derivation of one word from another, but to the 
division of words into ten parts of speech! Let 
us now inquire whether this application of the 
word, etymology, finds any justification in the 
import of the original words from which etymo- 
logy is said to be derived ? That " etymology" as 
meaning true original words, (that is, the words 
from which others are made,) is formed, derived, 
from etumon, and logos, is not denied. But it is 
denied that " etymology," as meaning the division 
of words into parts of speech, is derived from 
etumon, and logos! This import was never in 
etumon, and logos, nor was any import ever in 
etumon, and logos, which can at all sanction this 
application of etymology. If, then, the idea of 
dividing words into parts of speech was never in 
etumon, and logos, how can this idea, this trait of 
significant character have been derived from these 
words ! ? But this is not all : the old school gram- 
marians apply etymology to the gender, time, mood, 
number, and person, of words ! Is there any part 
of the meaning of etumon, or of logos, which con- 
veys any allusion whatever to plural, to singular, 
to time, to sex, to the distinction of persons into 
speakers, auditors, &c. ? I can not be in an 
error on this point, for every Grammar of the old 
school stamp, treats of gender, number, time, mood, 
and speakers, and hearers, and neither, under the 
head of Etymology. Yea, more: they also bring 
all the distinctions of articles into definite, and 
indefinite, of nouns into common and proper, par- 
ticipial, and abstract, of pronouns into personal, 
relative, neuter, interrogative, compound, and ad- 
jective, of verbs into active, neuter, passive, regular, 
irregular, transitive, intransitive, auxiliary, and 
principul, of participles into present, perfect, and 
compound, of adjectives into cardinal, ordinal, 



numeral, &c. &c. ! J Nor is this all : the cases of 
nouns, and pronouns are also brought under the 
word, etymology, which means merely the doc- 
trine of forming old words into new ones in a way 
which will infuse into the new, the form, and 
meaning of the old. 



CHAPTER XXVII. 

A SENTENCE. 

A Sentence is a very peculiar assemblage of 
words, and it should be well understood by him 
who attempts to acquire a knowledge of grammar. 
The definition of a sentence is a very unsuccessful 
attempt, as may be seen from an examination of 
the following reflections : 

1. "A sentence is an assemblage of words form- 
ing a complete sense." 

2. "A verb, and noun united form a sentence." 

3. "A sentence is an assemblage of words 
making complete sense, and always contains an 
agent and a verb." 

4. " In philosophical language, a sentence con- 
sists of a subject and a predicate, connected by an 
affirmation." 

5. "A sentence is an expression of connected 
thought." 

To understand the first of the above definitions, 
one should be able to say what its author intends 
by the phrase, " a complete sense." The word 
" complete" means finished, ended, full ! The 
word, "sense," as used in this definition, must 
mean perception, or apprehension of the mind. It 
seems, then, that a Sentence is an assemblage of 
words, forming a finished, an ended, or a full per- 
ception, or apprehension ; as, John, new book, old 
wine. 

In calling to an individual by the instrumen- 
tality of the word, John the perception produced, 
is complete; for he has a full, and distinct appre- 
hension that he is addressed : hence, this noun is 
indeed the assemblage of words, which forms a 
sentence ! ! But it may be said that although the 
individual thus addressed, may have a complete 
apprehension that he is addressed ; yet, as this 
salutation is a mere preparation for some proposi- 
tion, it is evident that the sense is not ended, not 
finished, consequently, not complete. By parity 
of reasoning, then, the assertion, "John is" is not 
a sentence ; for, as in the case of the address 
something more may be looked for, so in the in- 
stance of this assertion, something more must be 
expected. To the first we may affix this : John, 
come here. To the second we may subjoin this : 
John is sick unto death. 

Upon this principle, the assertion, I saw those 
red i is not a sentence, because I do not say those 
red what! But the subjunction of the things 
seen, renders this assertion a sentence ; as, I saw 
those red apples ! 



APPEAL. 



137 



So too the affirmation, "-Jane was punished," is 
not a sentence, because the writer does not subjoin 
by whom she was punished ! 

2. " A verb and a noun form a sentence." Or, 
u Any finite verb with its nominative case forms 

a sentence ;" as, John is. 

This definition does not tell what a sentence is ; 
it specifies what parts of speech compose one! 
To mention the material of which a table may be 
made, is not telling what a table is ! 

" Any finite verb with its nominative case forms 
a sentence ;" as, If he is there. 

He, and is arc the materials out of which Mr. 
Murray makes a sentence — yet as the sense is not 
complete, the following definition by Mr. Kirkham, 
seems strongly to question Mr. Murray's ability 
to form a sentence out of so few materials : 

" A sentence is an assemblage of words, forming 
a complete sense !" 

That is, to form a sentence, you must add word 
to word, subjoin phrase to phrase, and annex 
clause to clause till all the connected, or relative 
parts of the same topic, are crowded into one un- 
divided mass of words ! ! 

3. "A sentence is an assemblage of words 
making complete sense, and always containing an 
agent and a verb;" as, I have been punished ! 

As Mr. Davenport has given no example in 
illustration of this definition, I have taken the 
liberty of supplying this very obvious deficiency. 
But I fear that the one which I have given him is 
not so well adapted to his views as he may wish. 
And I must admit that as the assemblage of words, 
which I have employed contains no agent, it 
seems not a very happy choice • 

The next definition which I shall repeat, is from 
the pen of Noah Webster — 

"In philosophical language, a sentence consists 
of a subject and a predicate, connected by an 
affirmation. Thus, God is omnipotent." 

According to this definition, every sentence 
comprises an affirmation > Therefore, the follow- 
ing syllabanes are not sentences : 

1. Is God omnipotent? 

2. Did Saul persecute the Christians? 

3. John, put your book on the table. 

4. Joseph, will you bring some water ? 

5. Is your family all well ? 

6. " Have mercy on us," 

7. " Forgive our sins." 

M How the rule vanishes before the test !" 
Webster. 

8. " A sentence is the expression of connected 
thought." 

Although this definition is laughable, it is as 
sound as any of the old ones. " Ripe Apples" is 
a phrase which expresses connected, and regularly 
connected thought; yet this phrase, except by 
the authority of Mr. Kirkham, is not a sentence ! 

Hitherto insuperable difficulties have been found 



in attempting to define a sentence. These, it is 
apprehended, have arisen from not ascertaining 
the sentence characteristic which distinguishes a 
sentence from any other syllabane. I believe that 
I have ascertained the true characteristic of a 
sentence. 

This characteristic is the capacity of the sylla- 
bane to stand alone. But the word, sentence, is 
not expressive of this characteristic capacity of the 
syllabane — hence I have used the word, Mono. 
logue with the word, sentence. \_Monos alone, and 
Logos, Speech.] 

A monologue, or sentexce is a syllabane of two, 
or more words, which is so far cut off from every 
other syllabane in sense, and construction, that it 
can stand alone ; as, Master, I have brought my 
son unto thee. 

2. She said, no man, Lord. 

3. In the beginning was the Word ; and the 
Word was with God ; and the Word was God. 

4. I am. [Book I. p. 14.] 



CHAPTER XXVIII. 

THE OLD THEORY OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR NOT A 

SYSTEM. 

That the old theory of English Grammar is 
not a system, is obvious to all who have learned it. 
How, then, it may be asked, does it happen that 
so many admire it? They that admire the old 
theory of English grammar, do it not because^they 
find any thing in it, worthy even of approbation, 
but because they find a high degree of mystery 
about it. Any other thing equally mysterious, is 
is as well calculated to gain the admiration of 
these persons. I could give the names of hundreds 
who teach by this theory, and who say that they like 
to teach English Grammar much better than any 
other branch. But these persons teach this theory, 
not because they do understand it, but because 
they do not. There is something mysterious in 
this theory of rough names, contradictory princi- 
ples, and bewildering long notes, which acts as a 
charm even upon the reason of some. In this, 
there is nothing strange : human beings, in gene- 
ral, almost revere in adult age, what they acquire 
in childhood. This is particularly the case when 
the thing acquired, is a theory taught from a book 
in general use. Children are inclined by nature, 
to adopt whatever is advanced in books, as true. 
And adults are inclined by nature, to " hold on" to 
whatever they bring up with them from the nur- 
sery, and the school room. This accounts for the 
tenacity with which sc many hold to an old theory 
lone after they become convinced that the theory 
cannot sustain them. In general, both teacher, 
and pupil, in grammar, are entirely dependent 



138 



APPEAL. 



upon mere book authority. Should it be laid down 
by an author of an arithmetic, that Jive with four, 
are fifteen, neither teacher, nor pupil would believe 
it upon the authority of the book. 

But, in grammar, whatever the book says, is true 
to the letter! In arithmetic, there are principles 
which can be understood ; and which, when ap- 
plied, will decide whether five with four, are 
fifteen. In grammar, however, the only principles 
which can be understood, are the dictums of the 
book ! — And the only process of reasoning consists 
of reciting false rules, definitions, notes, observa- 
tions, and exceptions from Murray, Ingersoll, 
Bullions, Comly, Webster, Smith, Kirkham, Goold 
Brown, Frost, fyc, fyc, fyc. 

Would the prediction of fifty false prophets, 
establish it in the minds of the people, that John 
Jones is to be translated ! ? Or would the decla- 
rations of fifty blind men establish it as a fact, that 
a white horse is a black one ! ? 

I will not say that I have demonstrated that 
these grammar menders have no eyes — but I am 
entirely mistaken if I have not proved, that if they 
have any, they have little, or no use of them ! ! 

The English language has constructive princi- 
ples. It is the province of a maker of an English 
Grammar, to explain these principles, and to con- 
struct his theory upon them. 

The old theory of English grammar, is denomi- 
nated a system. This, however, is a gross 
misnomer ; it bears no analogy to a system. In a 
system, the classes of the same grade, are all 
formed in reference to the same trait of character 
in the thing. That is, in the general classification 
of things, words, principles, or ideas, every class 
is formed in reference to the same principle, the 
same characteristic, the same ear-mark. And in 
each sub classification, each class is formed in 
reference to the same ear-mark in the thing-. 

Botany is the science of the structure, functions, 
properties, habits, and arrangement of plants. 
But a theory on this science, which does not adopt 
a uniformity in the plan of classification, is any 
thing but a system. For instance — were some of 
the general classes formed in reference to the 
structure, and others in reference to the functions, 
of plants, the theory would not be a system. 
Uniformity in classification, is absolutely essential 
to system — indeed, uniformity is system itself. 
Have the old school Grammarians observed a 
uniformity of basis in their classification of words 
as parts of speech? 

Noun. Article. 

Verb. Adjective. 

Adverb. Preposition. 

Conjunction. Pronoun. 

Participle. Interjection. 

Here are ten classes in one set — yet no two 
classes in the set, are formed in reference to the 
same ear mark, the same trait of character. 



1. The noun is defined in reference to the name 
character of a word. 

2. The article is denned, not in reference to 
the name character of a word, but in reference to 
a limiting power which it is said to exert over 
other words. 

3. The verb is defined in reference to the being, 
action, and suffering which it expresses. 

4. The abjective is defined in reference to 
adjection, and quality. 

5* The adverb is defined in reference to "how, 
when, and where.' 1 '' 

6. The preposition is defined in reference to 
relation. 

7. The conjunction is defined in reference to 
connection. 

8. The pronoun is defined in reference to the 
prevention of the repetition of the noun. 

9. The participle is defined in reference to its 
participation of the nature of a verb, and adjec- 
tive. 

10. The interjection is defined in reference to 
the position which it occupies with respect to other 
words, and to the ideas which it expresses. 

The different principles in reference to which these 
ten classes are formed. 

1. Name character of a word. 

2. Limiting power over other words. 

3. Being, action, and suffering. (Three.) 

4. Adjection, and quality. (Two.) 

5. How, when, and where. (Three.) 

6. Relation. 

7. Connection. 

8. Prevention of repetition. 

9.' Participation of two natures ! 
10. Preposition, and character of ideas. (Two.) 

As the verb is defined in reference to three 
things, — the adjective, in reference to two, — and 
the adverb in reference to three, the number of 
things as here indicated, is augmented to sixteen. 
These ten classes, then, which system requires to 
be formed in reference to one thing-, are formed in 
reference to sixteen 1 ! And these sixteen things 
in reference to which this one set of classes is 
formed, are as dissimilar as any two things which 
can be mentioned ! ! ! This is uniformity, — this 
is system indeed ! If one class is formed in refer- 
ence to the name character of words, each should 
be formed in reference to this character. And, if 
all these classes cannot be defined in reference to 
this character, no one should be. 

I have discussed each of these classes fully in 
another part of this work — hence I shall say 
nothing more in this place of this error of classifi- 
cation. 

The old theory of English grammar is denomi. 
nated a system. But this is a gross misnomer. 
In a system, the classes of the same grade, are all 
formed in reference to the same trait of character. 



APPEAL. 



139 



Any classification of words, which is not formed 
upon this principle, is confusion, — not system ! 

1. Noun. 
"A noun is the name of something;" as, 
Book, John, London, Virtue, Accuracy, 
Upon what principle is a word called a noun ? 
The principle is the name character of the word. 

2. Article. 

" An article is a word put before a noun, to 
show the extent of its meaning ; as, a man, the 
man." Bullions. 

This definition conveys no allusion to the name 
character on which the noun is defined. 

That the absurdity of this way of classing the 
words of a language, may be fully seen, let it be 
asked what would be thought of a teacher of a 
Seminary, who should attempt to make a classifica- 
tion of the pupils of his institution upon totally 
dissimilar principles. For instance — the pupils 
who study grammar, he classes in reference to 
this study, and denominates them the 
Grammar Class. 

But, them who study geography, he classes, not 
in reference to this study, but in reference to their 
ages ! ! ! 

Thus instead of having a Grammar class, and 
Geography class, the teacher has 

1. Grammar class, and 

2. An age class !! 

What man, what child, does not see that if one 
is a Grammar class, the other is a Geography 
class ? 

1. A noun is the name of a thing; as, John, 
London, book. Bullions. 

An article is a word put before a noun, to show 
the extent of its meaning; as, a man, the man. 
Bullions. 

That is, they that study grammar, are a Gram- 
mar class, — but they that study geography, are 
an Age class ! ! ! 

3. Adjective. 

" An adjective is a word added to a noun to ex- 
press its quality ; as, a good boy." Bullions. 

Here the principle of classing words, is changed 
again. In the definition, no allusion is made to 
the showing of the extent of the meaning of the 
noun ! ! An article is a word which is put before 
a noun to show the noun's extent of meaning ; as, 
a man, the man. 

But an adjective is a word added to a noun to 
express the noun's quality; as, a good boy ! I 

4. Pronoun. 

" A pronoun is a word used instead of a noun ; 
as, John is a good boy ; he is diligent in his 
studies." Bullions. 

Here too we find another distinct principle of 
classification. Here the principle of classing bears 
no analogy to that on which the noun is defined, J 



— to that on which the article is defined, — nor to 
that on which the adjective is defined ! 

A pronoun is used instead of a noun ; as, "He 
promised to come which he did not do." 

(Is which used instead of a noun, or instead of 
a verb .' ! ?) 

5. Verb. 

'• A verb is a word that expresses an action, or 
state ; as, I write, you sit, he sleeps, they ore." 
Bullions. 

Another change in the principle of classing 
words ! The idea of substitution is entirely re- 
jected : action, and state are here made the basis 
of classing words ! 

(We should be pleased to learn whether resem- 
bles falls under the idea of action, or state'.? We 
feel somewhat curious too to learn whether will, 
in the expression, " I will pay you soon," expresses 
action, or state .' .' In this case will appears to ex- 
press a promise ! ! !) Bullions' English Gram- 
mar, p. 32 I ! ! 

6. Participle, 

The participle is a part of the verb which con- 
tains no affirmation, but expresses being, doing, or 
suffering; as, 

John being a good pupil, his teacher thought 
much of him." — Bullion's English Grammar being 
worse than Murray's, we cannot recommend it. 

Being is a participle — but as the participle is 
the part of the verb, which contains no affirmation, 
we trust that we shall not be charged with 
having said that Bullion's Grammar is worse than 
Murray's ! 

7. Adverb. 

" An adverb is a word joined to a verb, an ad- 
jective, or to another adverb, to modify or denote 
some circumstances respecting it; Ann speaks 
distinctly ; she is remarkably diligent, she reads 
very correctly.'''' Bullions. 

Here too is new ground. But it may be said 
that it is utterly impossible to class all words in 
reference to the same thing. We shall discuss 
this, point in its proper place. Still we will simply 
enquire here whether reads is not as much the 
name of the action as is Ann the name of the 
agent — whether correctly is not as much the name 
of the manner m which she reads, as is reads the 
name of her action ; and whether very is not as 
much the name of the degree of her manner as is 
correctly the name of the manner itself? 

8. Preposition. 

" A preposition is a word which expresses the 
relation in which a substantive stands to a verb, 
or to another substantive in the same sentence ; 
as, Before honor is humility ; they speak concern- 
ing virtue." Bullions. 

Nothing of the old ground is here seen : Behold 
old things have passed away — all things have 
become new ! 



140 



APPEAL. 



9. Conjunction. 

" A conjunction is a word which joins words 
and sentences together ; as, You and I must study ; 
but he may go, and play." Bullions. 

10. Interjection. 

An interjection is a word which expresses some 
emotion of the speaker ; as, Oh ! What a sight is 
here ! Well done ! Bullions. 

Thus we have given not only the ten different 
principles in reference to which the ten parts of 
speech are defined, but the definitions themselves. 
The ten principles are not only entirely foreign to 
the subject of grammar, but totally different from 
one another. The irrelevancy of the principles to 
the subject of grammar, and the heterogeneousness 
of them may be well illustrated by the following 
principles on which a distinguished pedagogue 
classed the pupils of his school. 

1. Age of the child! 

2. Height of the child ! 

3. Weight of the child '. 

4. Color of the child's coat ! 

5. Extent of the child's family connection! 

6. Kind of food most desired by the child! 

7. Form of the child's nose ! 

8. Distance which the child lives from the 
school house ! 

9. Health of the child ! 

10. Number of pigs possessed by the child's 
father ; 

Ridiculous as this may appear to the reader, we 
assure him that it is a fair illustration of the old 
theory of English Grammar. 

" Age ! has age any thing to do with the classi- 
fication ?" Nothing — nor has the name character 
of a word any thing to do with its part of speech 
character. As every pupil must have age, so 
every word in a language, must possess the name 
character ! If you show us a word which is not 
the name of something, you will exhibit the fifth 
wheel to a coach. What enables a word to be a 
name ? It is the sign character. Do not all 
words have the sign character ! What says the 
following definition 1 

" Words are articulate sounds used by common 
consent as the signs of our ideas." 

Who disputes the soundness of this definition of 
words ? Does any one ? Can any one ! ? All 
words, then, are signs. And, as no word has any 
thing but the sign character which this definition 
gives to all words, to enable it to become a name, 
how can book become a name any more than 
behind ? If one word can become a name by vir- 
tue of its sign character, cannot all words become 
names by virtue of their sign character ? And, if 
one word can become a noun by virtue of its name 
character., cannot all words become nouns by 



Why then, are not all words 



the same means ! ? 
nouns ! ? 

It seems from the following extract that Dr. 
Webster holds that the part of speech trait of 
character is founded in nature : 

"Thus the distinction between the sexes, be- 
tween things and their qualities, between the 
names of substances, and of their actions, or 
motions, between unity, and plurality, between 
present, and future time, and some other distinc- 
tions are founded in nature, and gives rise to 
different species of words, and to various inflections 
in all languages." 

Let us now ask this simple question : what is 
founded in nature ? The distinction between 
the sexes is founded in nature. What else is 
founded in nature ? The distinction between 
things and their qualities, is founded in nature. 
This is all very true : but while nature makes 
these distinctions in her works, she points out no 
exact method to man by which he is to express 
these distinctions. In very many instances indeed 
the distinction of sex in our language must be 
sought from the context itself, from the nature of 
the proposition, from the circumstances of the 
case. 

True, nature makes a distinction between the 
quality and its subject. But nature does not point 
out the means by which men shall express this 
distinction ! This distinction is expressed differ- 
ent ways in different languages. And even in the 
same language there is a variety of ways of 
expressing this very distinction ! The distinction 
is one thing ; the method of expressing it is 
another. With the distinction itself nature has 
every thing to do — but with the means of express- 
ing this distinction nature has nothing to do ! 
For instance : In the following words, and forms 
of words, we find nine modes of expressing the 
quality of accuracy : correctness, correct, correctly, 
accuracy, accurate', accurately, propriety, proper, 
properly I 

But it is said by Dr. Webster in the subjoined 
part of his sentence which he offers as a definition 
of grammar, that these distinctions give rise to 
different species of words : 

" And gives rise to different species of words, 
and to various inflections in all languages." 

Is it possible that the distinctions which nature 
has made in her works, gives rise to different 
species of words, and various inflections ? Accu- 
racy denotes a quality; and yet accuracy is a 
noun : pen denotes, not a quality but an instru- 
ment ; and, yet pen is a noun I Accurate denotes 
a quality, and accuracy denotes a quality ; and, 
yet, accurate is an adjective, and accuracy a 
noun! 

If Dr. Webster's doctrine is sound, all words 
denoting qualities, should be of the same species, 



APPEAL. 



141 



or of the same part of speech ! 
Examine for yourselves : 



But is it so? 



Quality. 

1. Accuracy. Noun. 

2. Accurate. Adjective. 

3. Accurately. Adverb. 

But Dr. Webster does not stop here : he pro- 
ceeds as follows : 

" The distinction between the names of substan- 
ces, and the names of their actions, or motions, 
give rise to different species of words, and to 
various inflections in all languages." 

This is so for from the truth, that the very 
same word which is the name of the substance is 
the name of the action of the substance : this is 
not rare, but common. 

Noun. Verb. 

1. The judge will judge us all. 

Noun. Verb. 

2. This man will man the ship. 

Noun. Verb. 

3. That ship did ship the articles. 
Noun Verb. Noun. 

4. Love will love love. 

Noun. Verb. 

5. This plow will plow well. 

Noun. Verb. 

6. His order will order him to return. 
Noun. Verb. 

7. Water does water the plants. 

Noun. Verb. 

8. My note will note that fact. 

Noun. Verb. 

9. This punch did punch the brad. 

Noun. Verb. 
10. This^en did^en these lines. 

Let us now give some instances in which the 
name of the action, or motion is a noun : 

1. The race was run last week. 

2. The flight of the bird was high. 
1 3. Investigation is his employment. 

4. He is never found in the act of decursion. 

5. They are engaged in the act of dedication. 
All the italic words in the above instances, and 

thousands of others, are the names of actions — yet 
these words are nouns. What, then, becomes of 
Mr. Webster's doctrine, that the distinction which 
nature has made between the substance, and its 
action, gives rise to different species of words ? 
It is not the kind of thing denoted, which deter- 
mines the grammatical species of words. Words 
may denote action, and be nouns; they may 
denote action, and be verbs. 



The dictionary import, the general signification 
of a word, is not the true basis for its grammatic 
classification. And I undertake to say that the cause 
of which our present destitution of a correct system 
of English Grammar, is the effect, may be found in 
the error which all have committed upon the very 
threshhold of their essays to form a system of defi- 
nitions, and rules for the full expression of the 
constructive principles of our language to the 
juvenile mind. The import, the meaning of 
words, has been made by all grammarians, the 
main principle for the classification of the words 
in a sentence. Hence, as nouns, verbs, pronouns, 
prepositions, conjunctions, adjectives, and adverbs, 
may signify the same ideas, the pupil, teacher, 
grammarian, and philosopher, have ever been 
unable to find that clear line of distinction, which 
all grammarians have attempted to draw in their 
classification of the words of a sentence. For 
instance : of, my, John's, own, have, and owns, all 
denote the idea of possession. 

1. This is the hat of John. Of, a preposition. 

2. This is John's hat. John's a noun. 

3. This is my own hat. My, a pronoun ; own, 
an adjective. 

4. They have three hats. Have, a verb. 

5. They own three houses. Own, a verb. 

II. The words, resembles, resemblance, similar, 
similarity, like, likeness, analogous, analogy, all 
denote the same general idea, viz. the relation, or 
quality of resemblance. 

1. He resembles me. Resembles, a verb. 

2. There is a resemblance between us. Re- 
semblance, a noun. 

3. This is a similar circumstance. Similar, an 
adjective. 

4. There is a similarity between those books. 
Similarity, a noun. 

5. These two books are like mine. Like, an 
adjective. 

6. The likeness between them is obvious. Like- 
ness, a noun. 

7.-<The cases are analogous. Analogous, an 
adjective. 

8. The analogy between the cases, is clear. 
Analogy, a noun. 

III. It is said a verb signifies being, or action, 
or some state of being. But many nouns, ad- 
jectives, adverbs, and even interjections express 
the same things. 

1. An adjective denotes action; as, a quivering 
leaf, running water, flying clouds, a breathing 
body. 

Adjectives denote some state; as, I am well, 
she is sick, he is dead, they are safe, we are 
afraid, John is alive. 

2. Nouns denote some state ; as, He is a man 
of grief, he is a man of sorrow, he is in great dis- 
tress of mind, and body, I have great misery, I 
am in constant fear. 

3. Prepositions denote some state; as, he is 



142 



APPEAL. 



under a millstone, he is under a tyrant, I am 
placed over, not under, these men, he is in good 
heart. 

4. Adverbs denote some state ; as, he is out of 
temper, he fell out with his friend, he fell in with 
this gentleman in June last, one is, but the other 
is not. Here not signifies a state of nonexistence. 

IV. Nouns, and adjectives may denote the same 
ideas; as, a man of virtue, a virtuous man, a man 
of merit, a meritorious man, he is a man of worth, 
he is a worthy man. 

V. Nouns, and adverbs denote the same ideas ; 
as, he writes with accuracy, he writes accurately. 

VI. Nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs denote 
the same ideas ; as, he is a man of merit, they 
merit praise, he is a meritorious man, he con- 
ducted himself meritoriously. 

Now, is there any one who can not see from the 
preceding exhibition, that the British English 
grammarians have attempted what can never be 
accomplished ; namely, a consistent classification 
of words upon their significations ? 

There is much contention among grammarians 
respecting the number of the parts of speech. 
Some of the old school contend for six, some for 
eight, some for nine, and some for ten. Now, as 
the number of the parts of speech must necessarily 
depend upon the principle of classification, there 
may be but one part, and there may be as many 
parts as there are words in a language. If words 
are classed upon their exact Dictionary import, 
the English language would have seventy, or 
eighty thousand parts of speech. But, if words 
are classed upon the number of syllables which 
each word contains, there would be but four parts 
of speech, viz. monosyllable, dissyllable, trisyllable, 
and polysyllable. 

Specimen of Parsing. 
He surely understands geography 

He a monosyllable. 

sure-ly, a dissyllable. 

un-der -stands,- - a trisyllable. 

ge-og-ra-phy, a polysyllable. 

No word can be found which does not fall into 
one of the above classes. 

The above is one among a thousand bases on 
which words may be classed ; each basis giving a 
different number of parts, or classes. But, among 
all these bases of classification, there is but one 
which is sound ; there is but one which is calcu- 
lated to give the true constructive principles of our 
language : that one is the frame-work philosophy 
of a sentence. 

1. A sentence is a frame-work of signs, em- 
ployed by men for the communication of their 
ideas. 

2. Grammar is a science which treats of the 
constructive principles of a sentence. 

To construct is to build, to form. The word, 
construct, is derived from the Latin elements, con, 
together 1 , and struo, to arrange, to pile up. Hence, 



it is natural enough, that construct should mean 
the process, or act, of placing the parts of a thing 
according to some fixed principles of arrange- 
ment. 

The word, construction, may mean the act of 
building, or forming ; it may mean also the parti- 
cular form which the thing receives from being 
constructed ; and it may mean the manner in 
which the constituent parts of the thing con- 
structed, are put together. 

Perhaps, you will ask whether the word gram- 
mar, is synonymous with the word, construction. 
The word construction, is no more synonymous 
with the word, grammar, than the word, boy, is 
with the word, Nathaniel. 

Boy. Nathaniel. 

"Boy'''' is general in its application — it means 
not only the same being to which the word, Na- 
thaniel, applies, but it includes all the other beings 
of the same class. " Construction," like boy, is 
general; but "grammar," like "Nathaniel" is 
special, particular. 

I James, 
General, boy. Particular, < Joseph, 

f Nathaniel, 
fred, 
| yellow, 
General, colour. Particular,^ blue, 

I black, 
(_ scarlet, 
^architecture, 
J mechanism, 
Genera], construction, Special,^ organization, 

I anatomy, 
(^grammar. 

1. If the construction belongs to a house, we 
call it, (the construction) architecture. 

2. If the construction belongs to a machine, we 
call it mechanism. 

3. If the construction belongs to trees, or plants, 
we call it organization. 

4. If the construction belongs to an animal 
body, we call it anatomy. 

5. If the construction belongs to a word, or a 
sentence, or to a language, we call it grammar. 

We speak of the architecture of a house, a 
temple, a bridge, a fortification, &c., as fine, or 
otherwise. But we never speak of the mechanism 
of a house. Nor do we ever speak of the anatomy 
of a watch, or the grammar of a clock : we say 
the mechanism of a watch, the mechanism of a 
clock. Nor do we say the organization of a 
word, the organization of a sentence, the organi- 
zation of a language. We say the grammar of a 
word, the grammar of a sentence, the grammar 
of a language. 

" A Language is a. frame-work of signs, used by 
men for the communication of their ideas." 

In what way language is a frame-work, gram- 
marians of the old school seem unable to compre- 
hend. They appear to be willing to understand 
no system which is not composed of actors, actions 



APPEAL. 



143 



and objects ! Now, actors, actions, and objects 
may hold a conspicuous place in a system of me- 
taphysics; yet how they can become parts of a 
system of grammar, is not so very clear. But, is 
it not strange that these grammarians, after making 
actors, actions, being, and objects, the principal 
parts of their system, should proceed upon the 
ground that language itself is an abstract nothing, 
and a sentence the mere child of the imagination? 
Language, considered in its true character, seems 
to be as tangible as a clock ; and a sentence as 
much a piece of mechanism as a watch. A sen- 
tence is a frame-work of words. A word is a sort 
of house, a kind of temple, constructed of sound, 
ink, paint, metal, or other matter, and is occupied 
by the meaning, the signification itself. Thus a 
sentence is a little village, a cluster of buildings, 
various in their shape, size, and occupants. Thus, 
too, while a chapter is a whole ward of a verbal 
city, and a sentence one block of houses in this 
ward, a whole book is the entire city, peopled by 
those significant citizens that are engaged exclu- 
sively in the commerce of ideas. Language, then, 
is a frame-work whose constructive principles are 
not derived from actors, action, and objects, and, 
therefore, can never be developed by any system 
of grammar which makes these its foundation. 
Grammar concerns the construction of the Ian- 
guage, not the actors, actions, and objects which 
the words of a sentence denote. Hence, he who 
attempts to make a book to unfold the grammar, 
the mechanism of any language, should confine 
himself to constructive principles. To say what 
a word in any sentence means, is to leave the 
frame-work, the architecture of the house for its 
occupants. Bear this in mind : the grammarian is 
not to teach the nature of the liquid,, but to illus- 
trate the construction of the vessel '. In other 
words, it is not the province of the grammarian to 
describe the fruit, but to teach the frame-work of 
the basket which contains the fruit. 

Mr. Webster continues as follows : 

" The grammar of a particular language, is a 
system of general principles, derived from natural 
distinctions of words, and of particular rules, 
deduced from the customary forms of speech in 
the nation using that language. 

The grammar of a particular language is not a 
sj^stem of general, but of special principles ! 

This system of principles is not derived from 
natural distinctions of words. Indeed, if the 
distinctions among words, are the production of 
nature, nature is without any uniformity whatever ; 
for according to the sentence quoted above, she is 
different in different nations ! 

" The grammar of a particular language is a 
eystem of general principles derived from natural 
distinctions of words, and of particular rules 
deduced from the customary forms of speech in the 
nation using that language 1" 



But how can a system of general principles be 
deduced from particular forms ? 
Mr. Webster continues : 

" These usages are mostly arbitrary, or inci- 
dental; but when they become common to a 
nation, they arc to be considered as established, 
and received as rules of the highest authority .'" 

And yet this distinguished man has spent a long 
life in opposing these very rules ! ! Yes, in rela- 
tion to these very rules he remarks : — 

" It is the last effort I shall make to arrest the 
progress of error on this subject. It needs the 
club of a Hercules, wielded by the arm of a giant, 
to destroy the hydra of educational prejudice. 
The club and the arm I pretend not to possess, 
and my efforts may be fruitless ; but it will ever 
be a satisfaction to reflect that I have discharged 
a duty demanded by a deep sense of the import- 
ance of truth. It is not possible for me to think 
with indifference, that half a million of youth in 
our schools are daily toiling to learn that which is 
not true. It has been justly observed, that igno- 
rance is preferable to error." 

In a preceding paragraph, Mr. Webster says, 
that these usages are founded in natural distinc- 
tions of words — yet in the sentence now under 
consideration, he says that the usages which con- 
stitute the grammar of a language, are " mostly 
arbitrary or incidental.'''' 

" These usages are mostly arbitrary or inci- 
dental ; but when they become common to a 
nation, they are to be considered as established, 
and received as rules of the highest authority.' 1 '' 

And yet Mr. Webster in another book, holds 
the following language : 

" In the gradual progress of language, many 
words acquire new meanings, while the old ones 
become obsolete. So numerous are such instances, 
that between thirty and forty thousand definitions 
are contained in this work, which are not known 
to exist in any other ! ! " (A house divided 
against itself cannot stand.) 

We have now arrived at that place in the dis- 
cussion of this subject where it becomes important 
to mention somewhat formally the true basis of a 
system of grammar. But before we do this, it 
may be well enough to ask the reader to give close 
attention to the following points : 

1. The constructive character of a sentence. 

2. The significant character of words. 

3. The relative character of the things which 
are denoted by the words of the sentence. 

1. The true basis of a system of grammar must 
depend upon which of the above characters, the 
author wishes to develope. If he desires to devel- 
ope the relative character of the things which the 
words of a sentence, denote, the foundation of his 
system must be the relative character of these 
things. 



144 



APPEAL. 



2. If he wishes to develope the significant 
character of the component parts of a sentence, 
the foundation of his system must be the dic- 
tionary import of words. 



3. But, if he wishes to develope the construc- 
tive character of a sentence, and of its component 
parts, the foundation of his system must be the 
constructive, the frame-work, philosophy of a 
sentence. 

He must not begin by affirming that " a verb 
is a word which signifies, being, action, or suffer- 
ing." The lexicographer proclaims the significa- 
tion of words ! Let the grammarian publish their 
construction. 

Nor must he begin by affirming that the nomi- 
native case is the name of the agent, the actor, 
the subject ! Let the grammarian speak of the 
aid which the cordictive noun renders the verb in 
forming a cordiction, in the production of the 
sentence character. Whether the nominative 
case denotes the agent, the object, or neither, is 
no part of the grammarian's province to decide! 
The relative character of the things denoted, is 
no part of grammar ! 

But to be more formal : what does a system of 
grammar profess to teach ? Does it not undertake 
to teach the constructive character of language ? 
How, then, can it succeed in this undertaking 
while it founds all its distinctions, classifications, 
and rules, not upon the constructive, but upon the 
significant character of words, and the relative 
character of the things denoted by words ? 

Mr. Murray, his predecessors, and his succes- 
sors, have undertaken to teach the constructive 
principles of the English Language ; and, incre- 
dible as it may appear, in all their attempts to 
accomplish this great object, they have founded 
their theories, not upon construction, but upon the 
signification of words, and the relation of 
things ! ! That is, in their numerous attempts to 
form a system by which to teach the constructive 
character of a sentence, they have paid no regard 
to this constructive character ; but they have 
founded a system partly upon its significant philo- 
sophy, and partly upon the relative character of 
the things which the sentence points out ! 

THE BASIS OF THE OLD THEORY. 

1. The constructive character of a sentence. 

2. The significant character of words. 

3. The relative character of the things which 
are mentioned in a sentence." 



CHAPTER XXIX. 



PARTS OF SPEECH. 



What is the meaning of the word, parts ? 

Particular division ; distinct species, or sort be- 
longing to a whole." Webster. 

This is the only definition in any Dictionary 
which can justify this use of the word, parts. 

" Distinct species or sort belonging to a whole" 

Belonging to a whole what ? What whole is 
it which the old school grammarians divide into 
nine, or ten species, parts ? The following will 
answer the question : 

"Parts of speech." 

Speech, then, is divided into nine species!'! 
There are nine parts of speech. That is, there 
are nine species of speech ! ! ! 

Let us hear Mr. Bullions : 

" The parts of speech in the English Language, 
are nine, viz. 

Article, Noun, Adjective, Pronoun, Verb, Ad. 
verb, Preposition, Interjection, and Conjunction:'' 

What ! Is an article a species of speech I ? 
Is a, Is the, a species of speech ! ! ? 

1. A command is a species of speech : 

" Go off," " Return," " Take off thy shoes ; for 
the ground on which thou standest, is holy" 

2. An affirmation is a species of speech : 

" And God said," Let there be light — " and 
there was light" 

3. An interrogation is a species of speech : 

" Does the sun shine ?" 

4. A petition is a species of speech : 

" Forgive our sins" 

5. A subfirmation is a species of speech: 

" Thou canst make me whole if thou wilt" 

The genus to which these five species of speech 
belong, is denominated cordiction. 

The word, parts, is here used with much im- 
propriety, or it is used in the sense of species — 
hence the phrase, "Parts of speech," must be 
species of speech ! But a noun is no speech 
at all ! 

How, then, can a noun be a species of speech / 
Book is a noun — but is book speech ! ? 

As parts is used in the sense of species, would it 
not be much better to say, parts of words. 

That is, species of words ! 

In English, there are nine species of words : 

Article, Noun, Pronoun, Adjective, Verb, Ad- 
verb, Preposition, Interjection, and Conjunction. 

But is an article a species of speech ? 

" Parts of speech" 
In what sense is the word, speech, here used ? 



APPEAL. 



145 



This question is answered by Dr. Webster who 
says that, 

Speech means Language. A particular lan- 
guage, as distinct from others. " That which is 
spoken." Webster's Dictionary. 

If speech, as used above, means language, the 
import of the head, — "parts of speech,' 1 '' is sj)ccies 
of language. 

Hence the old school grammarians mean, by 
vine parts of speech, nine species of language ; 
as, the Latin, the Greek, the French, the Eng- 
lish, Sfc. 

" Parts of speech." 

We presume that the old school grammarians 
mean to express by this head, the idea of classes 
of words. This we infer, not from the language 
used, but from the nature of the subject. As 
grammar concerns words, it is natural to presume 
that in a theory of grammar, the author would 
attempt to divide the words of the language upon 
whose constructive principles he writes, into 
classeSi This presumption is the more natural 
from the consideration that almost every body 
knows that where there is not a throwing of 
things into classes, there is little science, or 
method. 

It is the province of science to classify things 
upon the basis of their analogies. Things, how- 
ever, can not be considered in classes without 
appropriate class names. Hence, where the terms 
which are used in analyzing, are the names of the 
things as individuals, and not as classes, there is 
a great want of scientific method and scientific 
truth. That the old theory of English grammar, 
has no class names, will be evident from a little 
attention to the subject of classification itself. 
Hence it may be well enough to devote a few 
moments to the subject of classification before we 
attempt to demonstrate that the old theory of 
English grammar is without this vital part. 

We have already said that it is the province of 
science to make a distribution of things into 
classes. Hence, Philosophers have divided all the 
objects of thought into genera. " Aristotle made 
ten categories, viz., substance, quantity, quality, 
relation, action, passion, time, place, situation, and 
habit." 

Things, however, are now considered in classes, 
under the following class names, — Class, Order, 
Genus, Species, and Variety. 

We have not room for fixed definitions of these 
technical family names, as used in works of sci- 
ence. We must content ourselves with the obser- 
vation that they are the classifying names of the 
various families of things, and beings, which are 
the subject of human contemplation. This method 
of disposing of the objects which surround us, is 
the work of division, and subdivision. The entire 
family, or race, is first divided into classes ; each 



class is subdivided into orders ; each order is sub. 
divided into genuses ; each genus is subdivided 
into species ; and, if the classifying properties arc 
not exhausted in the species, each species is sub- 
divided into varieties. We will give a specimen 
of this scientific analysis in the following classifi- 
cations of the letter, O. 

O, a letter of the Orbic Class. Perfect Order, 
Branchless Genus. 

Here the Genus cannot be subdivided into spe. 
cies, for the classifying properties on which this 
series of classification is instituted, are exhausted 
in the genus. 

ALPHABETIC CLASSISCOPE. 

The whole race. 

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ. 



Orbic 

Perfect 
Imperfect 

Branch 
Branchless 
Stem 
Stemless 

Monopart 

Duopart 

Tripart 

D Branch 
Q Branch 



Class. BCDGJOPQRSU. 

Order 1 0Q ' 

uraer (BCDGJPRSU. 

10. 

Genus ^ D JPR. 
J CGSU. 



> Species > E 



DP. 
BR. 



£ Variety 1 2; 



Inorbic Class. AEFHIKLMNTVWXYZ. 



Rightangle 
Acuteangle 

Monostem 
Duostem 
Monostem 
Duostem 

Uni branch 

Duobranch 

Tribranch 

Unibranch 

Bibranch 

Double A 

Double V. 



Or< 



Genus 



EFHLT. 
AKMNVWXYZ. 

1 EFLT. 

Eh. 

fAKNVXYZ. 
J WM. 



L. 
FT. 

E. 

Species J-XYV. 
AKN. 
M. 
W. 



Let us now give the analysis of Q. 

Q, a letter of the Orbic Class, Perfect Order, 
Branch Genus. (No Species.) 

R, a letter of the Orbic Class, Imperfect 
Order, Ste?n Genus, Tripart Species, and Q 
Branch Variety, 

Let us remark again that where there is not 
a throwing of things into classes, there is little 
science ; it is the province of science to classify 
things upon the basis of their analogies. Things, 
however, cannot be considered in classes, without 
appropriate class names. And where the terms 
which are used in analyzing, are the names of the 
things as mere individuals, there is neither method, 
nor truth. For instance, the word, be, is not the 



146 



APPEAL. 



name of a class of letters, but of an individual 
letter. The word, O, is not the name of a class 
of alphabetical characters, but the name of an 
individual character This may be seen from the 
following attempt at a definition of the word be : 

1. The word, be, is the name of a class of letters 
in the English alphabet ! 

2. B is a class of letters in the English 
alphabet • 

3. B is a letter in the English alphabet. 
The word, O, then, is not a class name. 

The syllabane, Orbic Class, is a class name. 
This name not only includes O, but every other 
letter which has any orbic quality ; as, B, C, D, 
G, J, O, P, Q, R, S, U. 

1. Individual name of B ; Be : 

2. Class name of B : Orbic Class : 

If we have made the reader understand the 
principle on which science proceeds in analyzing, 
he will see a great want of science in the method 
of analyzing words by the old system of grammar. 
The technical terms that the old school gram- 
mari-ans apply to the words which they parse, are 
not class, but individual names ! The word, noun, 
is the name of an individual word. This may be 
seen from the following : 

1. A noun is a class of words, which is the 
name of any thing of which we can have a 
notion : ! 

2. A noun is the name of any thing of which 
we can have a notion. 

The word, noun, then, takes words as individ- 
uals ; whereas the technology which the new 
system proposes to substitute for the old, considers 
words in classes. 

" Moses smote the rocky 

The word, Moses, is called a noun. But the 
class to which this word belongs, is called, noun 
denomination. 

The word, smote, is called a verb. But the 
class to which this word belongs, is styled, verb 
denomination. 

When the pupil parses a word, he necessarily 
mentions it by name. Having mentioned the 
word, the next step should be to class it. But it 
may be thought that when he applies noun, to 
the word which he is parsing he classes the 
word, 

" Man is mortal." 

Man is a noun. 

But, then, the application of noun to man, is 
not referring the word, man, to its appropriate 
class. The syllabane, a noun is a class of words 
is not sense — how, then can it be science ? 

THE SUBSTITUTE. 

A DENOMINATION OF WORDS. 

A Denomination of words is a number of verbal 
signs which have the same characteristic mark. 



In English, there are ten Denominations of 
words, viz : 

1. Noun Denomination. 

2. Pronoun Denomination. 

3. Verb Denomination. 

4. Preposition Denomination. 

5. Conjunction Denomination. 

6. Adjective Denomination. 

7. Subadjective Denomination. 

8. Adverb Denomination. 

9. Subadverb Denomination. 
10. Interjection Denomination. 



CHAPTER XXX. 



This term is as unmeaning, and as inappropri- 
ate as is the head, "Parts of Speech." 

Parse is from the Latin, pars, a part. If the 
derivative, parse, retains any of its primitive, 
pars, how can parse be applied to the process of 
analyzing a word ! ? 

The is called the definite article. 

And this is denominated parsing. 

But as all of " the " is taken when it is called 
a definite article, how can parse be applied to the 
process ! ? 

"In the city of Philadelphia." 

1. In is a preposition, belonging to city. 

The is the definite article, belonging to city. 

This process is styled parsing!! 

And "parse" is from pars, a part ! 

But as the whole word is taken, would it not be 
better to call this process, wholing than parsing / 

" Parsing is the resolving of a sentence into 
its elements, or parts of speech." Bullions's 
English Grammar. 

" Parsing is the resolving of a sentence ." 

If parsing is the resolving of a sentence, how 
can the old school grammarians talk of parsing a 
word ! ? If the process of parsing belongs to a 
sentence, with what propriety can a pupil be told 
by his teacher, to parse a, the, of, into, book, John, 
Boston ? 

But the process of parsing relates to words— 
not to a sentence. How do you parse Boston in 
the syllabane, " into Boston city." 

The old school grammarians are driven to this 
definition of parsing by the particular import of 
the word, parse, as derived from the Latin, pars. 
They know that the calling of into a preposition, 
is not a dividing of the word into parts. Hence 
they see that parse is entirely inappropriate. And 
to give this word the semblance of a just applica- 
tion, they say that parsing is the resolving of a 



APPEAL. 



147 



sentence. But is a sentence resolved into its ele- 
ments by the process of parsing its words ! ? 
What are the elements of a sentence ? They are 
words. In what way is a sentence resolved into 
words by parsing its words ! ? Is not a sentence 
in words before it is parsed/? If the process of 
taking the words of a sentence individually, is 
the resolving of it into its elements, the process of 
reading a sentence, is parsing ! ! The reader 
does not take the words of a sentence collectively, 
but individually — and, if this taking is resolving 
a sentence into words, why, the child who reads a 
sentence, actually parses it ! ! The truth is that 
the calling of the process of referring a word to 
its appropriate Denomination, the parsing of it, is 
a gross misnoyner. 

THE SUBSTITUTE. 

1. Nomination, (for the mere child.) 

In grammar, nomination is the process of 
naming the words of a sentence, as mere indi- 
viduals. 

2. Appropriation, (for the adult pupil.) 

In grammar Appropriation is the process of 
referring the words of a sentence to their respective 
Denominations, and of giving their respective 
grammatical properties. [Book II. p. 137.] 

specimen of nomination. 

[The power (of speech) is] (a faculty) ( , , 
peculiar) (to man ;) (and , was bestowed) (on 
him) (by his beneficent Creator) (for the greatest 

, ;) (and ,,,)(, , most excellent 
uses ;) (but (alas :) how often do we pervert it) (to 
the worst , ) (of purposes.) 



[The 


is an adjective. 


power 


is a noun. 


{of 


is a preposition. 


speech) 


is a noun. 


is] 


is a verb. 


(a 


is an adjective. 


faculty) 


is a noun. 


(which 


understood, is a pronoun 


is 


understood, is a verb. 


peculiar) 


is an adjective. 


(to 


is a preposition. 


man ,-) 


is a noun. 


(and 


is a conjunction. 


it 


understood, is a pronoun. 


was 


is a verb. 


bestowed) 


is a verb. 


(on 


is a preposition. 


him) 


is a pronoun. 



(by is a preposition. 

his is an adjective. 

beneficent is an adjective. 

Creator) is a noun. 



(for 

the 

greatest 
uses ,-) 

(and 

it 

was 



is a preposition, 
is an adjective, 
is an adjective, 
understood, is a noun. 



is a conjunction, 
understood, is a pronoun, 
understood, is a verb. 
bestowed) understood, is a verb. 

understood, is a preposition 
understood, is an adjective, 
is a subadjective. 
is an adjective, 
is a noun. 



(for 
the 
most 
excellent 
uses ,-) 

(but 

(alas !) 

how 

often 

do 

we 

pervert 

it) 

(to 
the 
worst 



is a conjunction. 

is an interjection. 

is a subadverb. 
is an adverb, 
is a verb, 
is a pronoun, 
is a verb, 
is a pronoun. 



is a preposition, 
is an adjective, 
is an adjective. 
purpose) understood, is a noun. 

(of is a preposition. 

purposes) is a noun. 

REMARKS. 

Nomination is intended for the mere beginner. 
It is a brief, simple process, in which the mere 
tyro in analysis, may be drilled to advantage. 

The different ways in which the word, Nomination, 
may be used in teaching. 

1. Teacher. — " What word is in nomination ?" 

2. Pupil.— ■" Books." 

3. Teacher. — "Who is the nominator ?" 

4. Pupil. — "John Howe." 

5. Teacher. — " Has not the books been nomi. 
nated already." 

6. Pupil. — " No, sir ; new is the only word 
which has been in nomination." 

II. Appropriation. 
In grammar, appropriation is the process of 
assigning words to their respective denonomina. 
tions, and ectological properties, to their respective 
words. 



[Absalom made Amasa] ( , , captain) (of the 
host) (instead of Joab.) 

1. [Absalom made Amasa] 

Absalom is a cordictive trunk word of tha 
noun denomination, aiding the 
verb, made to form the cordiction 



148 



APPEAL. 



of the mono, individual applica- 
tion, panta-theme reladiction, uni 
numerdiction, plused by s. and 
masculin genediction. 

made, I made, made is a branch word of 
the verb denomination, exerting 
its cordictive power in aiding the 
cordictive noun, Absalom, to form 
the cordiction of the mono, its 
tense in marking passed time, its 
ascribing in attributing the act of 
making to Absalom, and its sig- 
nificant power in expressing the 
act of making Amasa into the 
captain of the host, solo position, 
of the irregular passed tense form, 
passed tense and duo adaption, 
gnomefying with Absalom and 
Amasa. 

[To gnomefy with, is not only 
to make sense with, but 
to depend upon.] 

Amasa is an uncordictive trunk word of the 
noun denomination, individual 
application, panta-theme reladic- 
tion, uni numerdiction, plused 
by s. and masculin genediction. 
[Book p. 244.] 



CHAPTER XXXI. 

Of tiie generally received opinion, that Mr. 
Murray, ra compiling the received system op 

ENGLISH GRAMMAR, DESIRED TO CONFORM TO THE 
GRAMMAR OF OTHER LANGUAGES. 

It is generally admitted that the theory of 
English Grammar, compiled by Mr. Murray, is 
not suited to the genius of the English language. 
And this unsuitableness is accounted for in the 
following manner : 

It is pretended that it was the intention of Mr. 
Murray to construct his theory upon the princi- 
ples of the Latin, to enable the English scholar to 
prepare through his own language, to enter upon 
the study of the Latin. But this reasoning, 
besides imputing a weakness to Mr. Murray, does 
an injustice to truth itself. For, what geographer 
in giving a description of the earth, would so far 
copy after a description of the moon, as to ascribe 
to the earth many parts, and peculiarities which 
belong exclusively to the moon herself; more 
especially when it is considered that the sole 
inducement for such imitation would be a mere 
indirect preparation on the part of those who may 
happen to study the astronomy of the moon? 
Who does not see that this method must subject 
the student to very serious injury — of the earth, 



the very place which he inhabits, he has false 
ideas. But of the moon, a planet with which he 
has nothing to do, he has correct notions. 

There are two languages, a living one, and a 
dead one— one in general use— the other in 
limited use. 

The English being the living language, and the 
other the dead; the English being the one in 
general use, and the Latin being in very limited 
use ; the English being studied by all, but the 
Latin only by a mere few, if only one of the two 
can be clearly and truly presented, the English 
should have the decided preference. Both Ian- 
guages, however, may be described without any 
sacrifice of either. Mr. Murray openly disclaims 
any forced imitation— he declares in his Gram- 
mar, and more than once too, that the English is 
a language, peculiar to itself, and that it should 
have a grammar suited to its own character. 
That great scholar had not the least inclination to 
compound for the sake of this pretended accommo- 
dation. The following is an extract from a review 
of Mr. Murray's Grammar — and with the senti- 
ments here expressed, Mr. Murray was so well 
pleased, that he has given the extract a place in 
his work : 

" Under the head of Etymology, the author of 
this grammar judiciously adheres to the natural 
simplicity of the English language, without 
embarrassing the learner, with distinctions peculiar 
to the Latin tongue." — Analytical Review. 

And Mr. Murray himself, in speaking against 
the principle of imitation, remarks: 

" That our grammar should conform to the 
Grammar of the Latin and Greek, no further than 
convenience and the idiom of our language 
require." 

Again says Mr. Murray : 

" This would encumber our language with many 
improper terms, and a heavy and useless load of 
distinctions." " On the principle of imitating 
other languages in names and forms, without a 
correspondence in nature and idiom, we might 
adopt a number of declensions as well as a variety 
of cases for English substantives." 

The following taken from Mr. Murraifs English 
Grammar, shows with what pertinacity he intended 
to adhere to the genius of the English language. 

" The author of this work, long doubted the 
propriety of assigning to English nouns, an 
objective case." " The business of parsing, how- 
ever, and of showing the connection and depend- 
ence of words, will be most conveniently accom- 
plished by the adoption of such a case ; and the 
irregularity of having our nouns sometimes placed 
in a situation, in which they cannot be said to be 
in any case at all, will be avoided." 

Those, therefore, who would object to a revolu- 
tion in the present system of English grammar, 



APPEAL. 



149 



upon the ground of a further departure from the 
Latin, act upon a principle which is strongly 
opposed by Mr. Murray himself. 

The cases, as they now stand in English, ore 
so very different, both in names, and principles, 
that the student is much perplexed in attempting 
to acquire those of the Latin through his knowl- 
edge of those of the English. 



ENGLISH. 

Nominative 

Possessive 

Objective 



K No mi 
I Vocal 

C 

LA< 

]Al 



LATIN. 

native, 
ocative. 



Genitive. 

Accusative. 
Ablative. 
Native. 



Every language should be taught upon its own 
principles— and unless this is the case, no person 
can acquire a critical knowledge of any. 

It may be said that although the cases in 
English afford the student in grammar, little, or 
no aid in the Latin, yet the technical name of the 
parts of speech in English, greatly assist him in 
the study not only of the Latin, but in other Ian- 
guages. 

It is true that they who pass from the English 
to the Latin, are aided by the analogy in the tech- 
nical names of the different classes of the words 
in both languages. It is not true, however, that 
they are greatly aided by this similarity ; for any 
one of common verbal memory, can commit all the 
names of the ten parts of speech in half an hour, 
with ease. 

But how few are they who ever study the 
Latin — and how numerous are they who study 
the English? If, then, the production of the 
greatest amount of good is to decide upon the ex- 
pediency of introducing a few new, appropriate 
technicals, the point is decided in the affirmative 
with acclamation. 

There are many who condemn a new word as 
soon as they find that it has not received its alpha- 
betic niche in a dictionary. With such, all words 
of recent formation, are without comeliness, utility, 
and even existence, till they are scraped up by 
some lexicographer ! Upon this principle, a mer- 
chant's goods are destitute of beauty, utility, and 
even of being, unless they are methodically 
placed upon his shelves ! Mr. Webster, and 
many others, however, frankly denominate these 
significant concretions, words even before they 
have been taken into the sanctum sanctorum. In 
speaking of the number, and kind of words, which 
have been added to our language within a few 
years, Dr. Webster says : 

5. " Terms in the arts, and sciences — of these 
some thousands have been added to our language 
within the last fifty years, of which a small number 
only, have found their way into any dictionary" 
" An accurate definition of these terms in accord- 
ance with the advanced state of science at the 



present day, is now rendered important to all 
classes of readers by the popular character given 
of late, to the sciences, and the frequent occur- 
rence of scientific terms and allusions in literary 
works. The exact number of these terms now 
introduced for the first time into a dictionary, is 
not known. It cannot, however, be much short 
of four thousand." " Among them are some of 
the most common words in the language, such as 
oxyd, muriate, sulphate, sulphuric, nitric, azote, 
phosphorus, phosphorescent, planetarium, polarize, 
polarization, &c." Since the time of Johnson a 
complete revolution has taken place in almost every 
branch of physical science. New departments 
have been created, new principles developed, new 
modes of classification and description adopted. 
— Advertisement of Webster's Diet. 

The best preparation which a pupil can have 
for his future studies, is a critical acquaintance 
with his present one. And the best terms for the 
teacher, and the learner of any art, or science, are 
those which are truly appropriate in meaning, 
purely technical in character, and strictly uniform 
in application. 



CHAPTER XXXII. 

A SYNOPTICAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT. 

Notwithstanding few subjects have received 
more attention than " English Grammar," a sys- 
tem has not yet been formed which suits the 
peculiar genius of the Ex\glish Language. Why 
have all attempts failed ? Is the subject too intri- 
cate, too profound, for the distinguished scholars 
who have spent their days, and exhausted their 
learning upon it ? Or has the time since this 
subject was first agitated, been too short for the 
accomplishment of the object in view ? The 
author of this work is compelled to believe that 
neither the shortness of the time, nor the intricacy 
of the subject, can be urged as the reason why the 
world has not yet received a correct, clear, and 
full system of English Grajlmar. The cause, 
of which our present destitution of an English 
Grammar, is the effect, may be found in the error 
which all have committed upon the very threshold 
of their books. The import, the meaning of 
words, has been made, in all works on English 
Grammar, the main principle of classification. 
Hence, as nouns, verbs, pronouns, prepositions, 
conjunctions, adjectives, and adverbs, may signify 
the same ideas, the pupil, teacher, grammarian, 
and philosopher have been unable to find that clear 
line of distinction, which all grammarians have 
attempted to draw between the different families of 
words. For instance — Of, my, John's, own, have, 
and owns, all denote the idea of possession. 



APPEAL. 



150 



1. This is the hat of John. Of, a preposition. 

2. This is John's hat. John's, a noun. 

3. This is my own hat. My, a pronoun; own, 
an adjective. 

4. They have three hats. Have, a verb. 

5. He owns three hats. Owns, a verb. 

II. The words, resembles, resemblance, similar, 
similarity, like, likeness, analogous, analogy, all 
denote the same idea ; namely, the relation, or 
quality of resemblance. 

1. He resembles me. Resembles, a verb. 

2. There is a resemblance between us. Eesem- 
blance, a noun. 

3. This is a similar circumstance. Similar, an 
adjective. 

4. There is a similarity between these two 
books. Similarity, a noun. 

5. These two books are like mine. Like, an 
adjective. 

6. The likeness between them is obvious. 
Likeness, a noun. 

7. The cases are analogous. Analogous, an 
adjective. 

8. The analogy between the cases, is clear. 
Analogy, a noun. 

III. It is said that a verb expresses action, being, 
or some state of being. But, as so many nouns, 
adjectives, adverbs, and even interjections, express 
the same things, the above is not a definition of a 
verb. 

1. An Adjective denotes action ; as, a quiver- 
ing leaf, running water, flying clouds, a breathing 
body. 

Adjectives denote some state ; as, I am well, 
he is sick, she is dead, he is safe, he is afraid, he 
is alive. 

2. Nouns denote some state ; as, he is a man 
of grief, he is a man of sorrow, he is in great 
distress of mind, and body, I have much misery-) 
I am in constant fear. 

3. Prepositions denote some state ; as, he is 
under a millstone, he is under a tyrant, I am 
placed over, not under these men ; and I must 
control them, he is in good heart. 

4. Adverbs denote some state ; as, he is out of 
temper, he fell out with his friend, he fell in with 
this gentleman in June last ; one is, but the other 
is not. 

Note. — Here not denotes a state of death, or 
non-existence. 

IV. Nouns, and Adjectives may denote the 
same ideas ; as, a man of virtue, a virtuous man, 
a man of merit, he is a meritorious man, he is a 
worthy man, he is a man of worth. 

V. Nouns, and Adverbs denote the same ideas ; 
as, he writes with accuracy, he writes accurately. 

VI. Nouns, Verbs, Adjectives, and Adverbs 
denote the same ideas ; as, he is a man of merit, 



he merits praise, he is a meritorious man, he con- 
ducted himself meritoriously. 

Who from the preceding exhibition, cannot see 
that the British Grammarians have attempted 
what can never be accomplished ; namely, a con- 
sistent classification of words upon their signifi- 
cations. 

A hypothetical tree, comprising as many parts 
as our language has words, each part yielding 
fruit, and the whole tree producing as many 
kinds of fruit as the British grammarians have 
made parts of speech, may aid in giving a clear 
view of the erroneous course pursued by these dis- 
tinguished scholars in forming the old theory of 
English Grammar. 

Now, what construction, organization, is to the 
frame-work of this tree, grammar is to the frame- 
work of language. And, as the construction, the 
organization of the tree, is not the fruit which its 
component parts yield, so the grammar of a lan- 
guage, is not the Dictionary ideas which its words 
express. As grammar bears the same relation to 
language, which organization does to the tree, the 
proper course in forming a system of grammar, 
is to divide the words of a sentence, not according 
to their dictionary signification, but according to 
their constructive principles. 

Would it not be absurd in forming a book from 
which to learn the construction of this tree, to 
make the classification of the different parts 
according to the kind of fruit, which each part 
yields ? This course would abandon the structure, 
of the tree, and bring into the same class, parts, 
sustaining very different constructive characters. 
Would it be at all important, in presenting the 
mere frame- work of this tree, to ascertain how 
many kinds of fruit the whole tree yields ? Cer- 
tainly not. 

The British grammarians, in attempting to 
form a system from which the construction, the 
grammar, of our language, may be acquired, have 
founded their whole theory, and practice, upon 
the dictionary signification of the words in a 
sentence. Or, to pursue the figure, they have 
founded their theory, not upon the constructive 
principles of this tree, but upon the particular 
kind of fruit, which its different parts yield ! 

Their first step has been, as is obvious from 
their principles, to ascertain how many kinds of 
fruit the whole tree produces. These, they have 
ascertained to be ten — hence they have thrown 
the seventy thousand parts into ten classes, each 
part being classed, as they tell us, according to 
the kind of fruit, which it yields. The parts 
are : 

1. Apple-part, 6. Pear-part 

2. Peach-part, 7. Citron-part, 

3. Plumb-part, 8. Lemon-part, 

4. Cherry-part, 9. Currant-part, 

5. Grape-part, 10. Walnut-part 



APPEAL. 



151 



The first objection to this course is, that the 
theory abandons construction, which is the very 
science it sets out to teach ! The second, is that 
the practice abandons the theory itself! for, in 
practice, the parts of the tree are not classed ac- 
cording to the kinds of fruit which they produce. 
For instance, the branches which produce apples, 
are not referred to the apple-part class while those 
which do not produce this kind of fruit, are 
often referred to this class ! 



DEFINITIONS. 



1. An \pplc-part is a part which yields apples. 

1. An article is a word prefixed to substantives 
to point them out, and show how far their signifi- 
cation extends ; as a woman, an eagle, the 
garden. 

A, an, and the do not yield apples — yet these 
parts of speech, are referred to the apple-part 
class. That is, a, an, and the do not point out, 
do not show how far the signification of their 
nouns, extends — yet a, an, and the are ranked as 
articles. Does a point out what woman is meant ? 
Does an show what eagle is intended ? And does 
the ascertain the identity of any garden ? To 
show what woman is meant, this, that, old, young, 
coloured, or white might be used ; as, this woman, 
that woman, old woman, young woman, coloured 
woman, white woman. 

These words, however, which, to a greater, or 
less extent, do point out, are wrested from the class 
of articles, and forced into the class of adjectives. 
That is, these branches which actually produce 
apples, are compelled to leave their natural family, 
and take up their abode with strangers. 

To show what eagle is meant, bald might be 
US ed — and to point out what garden is intended, 
Washington might be employed ; as Washington 
garden, bald eagle. 

Now, bald, and Washington do show how far 
the signification of their nouns extends. These 
defining words, however, are not referred to the 
article class ; but, contrary to the theory (which 
is that the parts of the tree are to be classed ac- 
cording to the kind of fruit, which they bear) 
they are forced into other families ! 

In reply to these strictures upon this discre- 
pancy in the grammatical disposition of a, an, and 
the, it may be said that it is not meant by the 
British grammarians that a, an, and the point out 
without the aid of other words. Their definition 
of an article, however, does not call on other words 
to aid a, an, and the, in the work of measuring 
the noun's extent of application. But let this ob- 
jection to these reflections stand — and what fol- 
lows ? why, that all words which can point out 
the noun's application either alone, or by the aid 
of other words, are articles. And what adjective 
is there, which, by the aid of other words, cannot 
do this more minutely than a, an, or the ? 



Good boys that are properly educated, will be. 
come good men. 

In this example, good, aided by the mono, that 
are properly educated, shows to what boys the 
word boys, reaches. 

II. PEACH-PART. 

A Peach-part is a part which yields fruit ! 

A substantive, or noun is the name of any thing 
that exists, or of which we have any notion ; as, 
London, man, virtue, vice. 

As the definition of the peach. part, is universal 
in its application, so is that of a noun. As every 
part of the tree yields fruit, the definition of the 
peach-part embraces the whole tree. A peach-part 
is a part which yields fruit. 

Now, as every part of the tree yields fruit, so 
does every word in the language, express some 
idea. This is in accordance w r ith Mr. Murray's 
own definition of words, which says that — " Words 
are articulate sounds, used by common consent as 
the signs of our ideas." 

How can a word be the sign of an idea, and 
not be the name of an idea ? For example — The 
book is under the table. 

As under is the sign, or name of a place, (of 
which we certainly can have a notion) this pre- 
position is a noun. 

But it may be said that under expresses a rela- 
tion. Be it so — For, if under expressses a relation, 
it must be the name of a relation — Because it is 
not possible for a word to express an idea unless it 
is the name of an idea — It is the namitive power 
of a word, which enables it to express, or signify 
an idea. Hence, if a word has no namitive 
power, it can express no idea, and, in truth is no 
word at all ! 

The substitution of idea for thing, would not 
change the import of the British definition of a 
noun — A noun is the name of any idea which we 
have of any thing that exists ; as, 

John, and Foster write letters with accuracy. 

If the British definition of a noun, is sound, all 
the words in the above sentence, are nouns, foi 
each is the name of something. As and is the 
first word in the sentence, which is not called a 
noun, it may be well to commence with this word. 
Why is not and a noun ? Is not this conjunction 
the sign, the name of an idea ? If not, why does 
the use of or change the sense 1 John, or Fostei 
writes with accuracy. And, if neither and, nor 
or is a sign, a name of any idea, why does the 
omission of both these conjunctions change the 
sense of the sentence ? 

John Foster writes letters with accuracy ? 

But it may be said that and does not mean a 
literal thing. This I grant, and while I concede 
this, I take occasion to remind the objector that 
accuracy does not mean a literal thing ; that virtue 
does not mean a literal thing ; and that vice does 
not mean a literal thing ! ■ Nor indeed is there 
any word in the language which does mean a 



152 



APPEAL. 



literal thing. Words express the ideas which 
men form of things. Hear Mr. Murray on this 
point : 

" Words are articulate sounds, used by common 
consent as the signs of our ideas." 

The definition of a noun, to be strictly literal, 
should read thus — a noun is the name of any idea 
which we have of any thing that exists; as, 
London, man, virtue, vice, 

The word, thing, as here used, includes some- 
thing more than pen, book, knife, &c. &c. ; it 
must embrace whatever exists, whether it is a 
being, fact, circumstance, action, mode, relation, 
time, place, &c. 

" John, and Foster write with accuracy." 

The next word in this sentence, which is 
wrested in practice from the hands of the theory, 
is write. Write is the name, or sign of an action ; 
or it is the name of an idea which men have 
formed of the act of making letters with a pen, or 
pencil. Why then is not write a noun ? Does 
not the definition say that any word which is the 
name, or sign of any thing that exists, or of which 
we have a notion, is a noun ? And is not write 
the name, or sign of something of which we have 
a notion ? 

One of two things is certain, namely, either 
write is the name of the act of forming letters with 
a pen, or pencil, or this action has no name. But 
is this action a nameless action ? Do not men know 
by what name to call it? Do they not at this ad- 
vanced stage of things, know by what word, by 
what sign, by what name to designate this action 
which they so frequently perform ! 

" With." 

If with is not the sign, the name, of an idea, why 
is it employed in the expression of ideas? And 
if with has no definite meaning of its own, why 
is it that the substitution of without, produces so 
great a change in the sense of the sentence ? 
"John, and Foster write letters without accuracy." 

With is the sign that the quality of which accu- 
racy js the name, belongs to the letters. But 
without is the sign the name of the fact that 
this quality does not belong to them. Or in other 
words, with is the name, or sign of the idea of 
the presence of the quality which is denoted by 
accuracy. But without is the name of the idea 
of the absence of this quality. 

Take the word, nothing, in the following case : 

He went ; but he saw nothing. 

Is nothing the name of a thing ? Just as much 
as without is, and no more. Nothing is the name, 
or sign of the idea which we form in the absence 
of something — and without is the name, or sign, 
of the idea which we form of the absence of some- 
thing. If " nothing " is a noun, why, then, is 
not without ? 



III. PLUM-PART 

A Plum-part is a part which yields plums. 

A verb is a word which signifies, being, action, 
or suffering ; as, « I am, I rule, I am ruled:' 

I find thousands of words which signify being, 
action, or suffering, that are not called verbs. 

That is, there are thousands of the branches of 
this tree, actually bearing plums, that are not re- 
ferred to the plum-part family. For instance : 

The existence of man is short ; but the being 
of God is eternal ; man runs a short race here, 
he is seized with pains : he expires in the pangs 
of disease. 

Do not the words, existence, and being, express 
being ? Why then are they not verbs 1 

Does not race express action ? Why then is 
not this common noun a verb ? 

Do not the words, pains and pangs, signify 
suffering ? Why then should not these common 
nouns be yielded up to the definition of the verb, 
which imperiously demands them as its own ? 

Nor is this all, — for there are many parts of 
this tree, which do not bear plums, that are actually 
referred to the plum-part class ; as, 

1. John resembles his mother. 

2. The papers are extinct. 

3. Man can be just. 

4. John has one acre of ground, which he ought 
to cultivate. 

Resembles, are, can, has, and ought do not ex- 
press the ideas which the definition of the verb 
requires ; hence these words are not verbs by the 
authority of the definition. Here, then, is the 
double absurdity of withholding branches that 
yield plums, from the plum-part class, and of re- 
ferring other branches which do not bear this kind 
of fruit, to this class. 

IV. CHERRY-PART. 

A Cherry-part is a part which yields cherries. 
An adjective is a word added to a noun to ex- 
press its quality ; as, 

1. He is a good boy. 

2. They axe fine children. 

In considering this definition, it seems impor- 
tant to make a remark or two upon the word, add. 

To add, says the dictionary, " is to join some- 
thing to that which was before.' 1 '' This is not 
only the language of the dictionary, but that of 
sound sense, and universal usage. We cannot 
even think of adding any thing unless there is 
something already placed, to which we may add. 
No man talks about building an additional house 
unless he has one already up. Under this view 
of the subject, let me inquire which are the added 
words in the following assemblages : 



APPEAL. 



153 



1. "He is a good boy." 

2. " They are fine children." 

In the vocal, as well as in the written formation, 
of the above sentences, is, a, good, and boy would 
be added words — because, they must be introduced 
in addition to he, the first word spoken, or 
written. 

In the second sentence also, the words, when 
spoken, or written in the formation of the sentence, 
must be divided into added, and unadded. They 
is the unadded word, while are, fine, and children 
are the added ones. 

But as the words of a printed sentence, are all 
presented at the same point of time, a printed 
sentence can have no adjective ! What, can one 
of two houses which have been erected at the 
same time be denominated an additional house ? 
It cannot be ; the distinction is without sense. 

The word, added, not only indicates a state ; 
but it implies the manner in which the state is 
produced. When the state of connection is pro- 
duced in any manner different from that which 
the word, add, indicates the state is expressed, 
not by add, but by some other word ; as, junction, 
conjunction, connection, conjection, fyc. 

Hence, when the right hand is put upon the left, 
the right hand is the added one. And this state 
of connection may be denominated adjection. 
But, when both hands start from given points, and 
approximate till they come in contact, the state 
of connection thus produced, cannot be denomi- 
nated adjection. 

Small apples. 

The only proof that small is an adjective, is 
derived from juxtaposition, nearness. And is 
not the word, apple, as near to the word small, 
as small is to apple ? If then, juxtaposition 
constitutes small, an adjective, both words are 
adjectives. As both words are presented at the 
same time, and one is as near to the other as 
the other is to it, what is it which can render 
one an added word more than the other ? Is it 
replied that small is more an adjective than apple 
because small expresses a quality ? The answer 
is that small does not fall within the first part of 
the definition of an adjective ; for small is not an 
added word — hence, unless the mere fact of ex- 
pressing quality, renders a word an adjective ; how 
can small be an adjective ? And if a word is an 
adjective merely from the fact of expressing quality, 
then the italic nouns in the following instances, 
are all adjectives : 

1. He is a man of virtue. 

2. This is a man of great strength. 

3. The roundness of the ball. 

4. The smoothness of the paper. 

Does not the noun, virtue, express a quality of 
Hie man ? Does not strength also denote a quality 



of the man ? Does not roundness denote a quality 
of the ball ? And does not s?noothness signify a 
quality of the paper ? What, then, becomes of 
that definition of an adjective, which is founded 
upon the expression of a quality ? 

Watts, who has written much upon the subject 
of qualities, says : " Motion, (yes, action,) shape, 
quantity, weight, &c, &c., are properties or modes 
of bodies, and that wit, folly, love, doubting, judg- 
ing, Sfc, $c, are modes, or qualities of the 
mind." 

Again says Watts : "The term, mode, extends 
to all attributes whatever, including the most 
essential, and inward properties, and reaches even 
to actions themselves as well as to the maimer of 
action." 

A quality is defined by Watts, and others, in 
the following manner : 

" A mode or quality is that property which can- 
not exist in, and of itself, but is always esteemed 
as belonging to, and as subsisting by the help 
of some substance which, for this reason is called 
its subject." 

Thus the words, solidity, brightness, similarity, 
roundness, softness, accuracy, action, thinlcing, 
thought, to think, motion, Sfc,, all denote qualities, 
of some subject, upon which they depend for their 
existence. 

But, let it be conceded that small, in the phrase, 
small apple, comes within the first part of the 
definition of an adjective. That is, grant that 
small is an added word : and what follows ? why, 
that all words which are added to nouns to express 
qualities, are adjectives. Now, all verbs are as 
much added to nouns as is small, or any other 
adjective — verbs in general too express quality — 
therefore by virtue of this definition of an adjec- 
tive, verbs in general are adjectives ! 

Blair, in speaking of the verb, says : 

" The verb is so far of the same nature with 
the adjective, that it expresses, like the adjective, 
an attribute or property of some person, or tiling — 
thus, when I say the sun shines, shining is the 
attribute ascribed to the sun." — Blair's Lectures. 

The same doctrine is taught by Beattie — who 
says : " The verb, and adjective agree in this, 
both express qualities, or attributes." 

Thus it is asserted by these British oracles in 
English Philology, that verbs do express quali- 
ties, and that they are in this respect perfect ad- 
jectives. 

Nor is Murray himself less clear in his expres- 
sion of this doctrine. For in Etymology, he tells 
us that an adjective expresses the quality of a 
noun ; and, in his Syntax he informs us that the 
verb expresses a quality of the noun : 

" The principal parts of a simple sentence, are 
the attribute, and the object ; as, a wise man, 
governs his passions. Here, a wise man is the 



APPEAL. 



154 



subject; governs the attribute ; and Jiis passions, 
the object." Murray. 

The only difference between the definition of 
an adjective, and that of a verb, arises from 
generalizing in one case, and particularizing in 
the other. In defining an adjective, grammarians 
make it express all qualities ; as, good, bad, 
high, run, walk, &c. &c. 

But in defining a verb, they particularize 
being, action, and suffering, and that too in a way 
which interdicts the idea that being, action, and 
passion are qualities ? Thus, after including all 
animals in one definition, they define a horse in 
a way which indicates that a horse is not an ani- 
mal of any kind ! 

Having included all qualities in the definition of 
an adjective, the proper course for the old school 
grammar makers, and grammar menders seems 
to be this : 

A verb is an adjective added to a noun, to ex- 
press the quality of being, action, or suffering. 

As the foregoing chapters are designed to show the 
absurdity of the old grammar, in theory, the 
following ones are intended to demonstrate the 
inutility of it in practice. 



CHAPTER XXXIII. 



Style is the distinguishing turn, cast, air, or 
trait in the character of the sentence. 

Style is divided into 15. Nervous, 

1. Affected. 8. Feeble. 16. Negligent. 

2. Bombastic. 9. Florid. 17. Obscure. 

3. Concise. 10. Flowing. 18. Perspicious. 

4. Diffuse. 11. Harsh. 19. Simple. 

5. Easy. 12. Lofty. 20. Stiff. 

6. Elegant. 13. Loose. 21. Tumid. 

7. Epistolary. 14. Neat,or Terse.22. Verbose. 

I. AFFECTED STYLE. 

An affected style is that turn, that trait, which 
is properly denominated artificial, unnatural, as- 
sumed, false show ; as, 

1. The antiquarian too, and the traveller of 
every description, are lending their aid, to light 
up the lamp of English philology in the East, the 
West, the North, and the South ; and we antici- 
pate its universal use to be no farther distant than 
the glorious millennium. B. F. ElWs Grammar. 

2. The circumstances under w T hich it was pre- 
pared are simply these : 

Having recently resigned the genera] superin- 
tendence of a seminary where many different 
branches of education were taught, and entered 
upon a sphere of duty where my whole attention 
is directed to the subject of English Belles 
Lettres, I felt more sensibly than I had ever done 
before, the want of an elementary book of instruc- 



tion in Composition, suitable for beginners. Pre- 
face to John FrosVs Easy Exercises in Compo. 
sition. 

It is hardly necessary to say that the Affected 
style mars the sentence. As affected airs do not 
beautify a lady, or gentleman, so an affected style 
does not embellish a sentence. 

II. BOMBASTIC STYLE. 

A bombastic style is that turn, that trait, which 
springs from a serious attempt to raise a low, or 
a familiar subject above its just rank, by high 
sounding words; as, 

1. The English language is about thirteen 
hundred years old. It was the last formed lan- 
guage in the world, and without doubt will con- 
tinue to be the last, till time shall have been lost in 
the vortex of eternity. It is a language sublimer 
in magnitude, more splendid in diction, and richer 
in variety of expression than any other language 
in the world.- Behold it spreading its ample arms, 
embracing every continent, and grasping in the 
isles of the sea. B. F. Ells'' s Gram. 

2. The author is free to acknowledge, that since 
this treatise first ventured on the wave of public 
opinion, the gales of patronage which have wafted 
it along, have been far more favorable than he had 
reason to anticipate. Preface to Kirkham's 
Grammar. 

3. Grammar is a leading branch of that learn- 
ing which alone is capable of unfolding, and 
maturing the mental powers, and of elevating man 
to his proper rank in the scale of intellectual ex- 
istence ; of that learning which lifts the soul from 
earth, and enables it to hold converse with a thou- 
sand worlds. Preface to Kirkharn's Gram. 

4. Why did you cling with such pertinacious 
tenacity to this same anchor, to save your own 
new-born bark, from the random waves of Mr. 
Webster's tempestuous philological sea. B. F. 
ElW's Eng. Gram. 

The author of a sentence which is marred by 
a bombastic style, may be assimilated to a parent 
who makes a serious attempt to raise a clownish 
son to the rank of a gentleman, by gaudy appa- 
rel. The striking contrast between the son, and 
his wardrobe converts the attempt of the father 
into the ridiculous. 

III. CONCISE STYLE. 

A concise style is that trait, that turn, in the 
character of a sentence, which springs from the 
expression of much in a few words; as, 

1. " God is love." 

2. " Man is mortal." 

3. " John is needy : Howard is benevolent. 

In each of these sentences there is much said 
in a few words. 

IV. DIFFUSE STYLE. 

A diffuse, or verbose style is that trait, that 



APPEAL. 



155 



turn, in the character of a sentence which springs 
from the use of many words in the expression 
of a few ideas ; as, 

1. They are incapable themselves of imparting 
a satisfactory knowledge of the subject ; and yet 
it often happens, perhaps even in a majority of 
cases, that those who have commenced with the 
" introduction " have neither the time nor the 
means to get beyond it ; and besides unless the 
" introduction " be constructed on the same prin- 
ciple of arrangement and expression with the 
one which is intended to succeed, it will probably 
be found worse than useless ; for when a particu- 
lar arrangement and phraseology have become 
familiar to the mind, there is great difficulty in 
studying another work on the same subject, in 
which the arrangement and expression are mate- 
rially different. (109 words.) Preface to Bul- 
lions' s English Gram. 

2. For, whatever we may think in relation to 
its origin, whether we consider it a special gift 
from heaven, or an acquisition of industry, — a 
natural endowment, or an artificial invention, — 
certain it is, that, in the present state of things, 
our knowledge of it depends, in a great measure, 
if not entirely on the voluntary exercise of our 
faculties, and on the helps and opportunities 
afforded us, (68 words.) Preface to Goold Brown's 
Grammar.) 

3. The circumstance of my being called upon 
by the publishers to prepare a second edition of 
these Exercises in fifteen days after the publica- 
tion of the first, and the notification at the close of 
a month, that the first three thousand copies were 
sold, and a considerable part of the second edition 
ordered, afford a presumption that the work has met 
with the approbation of the public in its original 
shape. (71 words.) Preface to John Frost's 
Easy Exercises in Composition. 

The first sentence comprises one hundred and 
nine words. But the number which is actually 
necessary to express all which the author is justi- 
fied in saying, is far short of this. 

1. The first idea is that Introductions, Abridge- 
ments, are not sufficient. 

2. The second is the inability of many to avail 
themselves of the advantages of a full work. 

3. The third is that the Introduction, and the 
large work should be constructed upon the same 
principle. 

4. The fourth is that the pupil meets with much 
inconvenience in studying a large Grammar 
which differs from the abridged one in arrange- 
ment, and phraseology. 

These four ideas are all which the author is 
justified in attempting to express. 

That these can be expressed in fewer words 
than one hundred and nine, may be seen from the 
following sentence : 



The insufficiency of Introductions, the inability 
of many to avail themselves of the advantages of a 
full work, the want of analogy in plan, and expres- 
sion between the Epitome, and the Large work, 
render Abridgements comparatively useless. (37 
words.) 37 from 109, leaves 72 redundant 
words. 

A substitute for Goold Brown's sentence. 

2. For our knowledge of it depends much upon 
the proper use of the means which we possess for 
acquiring it. (20 words.) 48 redundant words. 
Hence the diffuse style which mars Mr. Goold 
Brown's sentence, consists of forty-eight useless 
words. 

It may be said, however, that the substitute for 
this author's sentence, does not contain as much 
as his own period. True, but the substitute con- 
tains all that is relevant. Diffuseness mainly 
consists of wasting words upon things which have 
no legitimate connection with the subject. 

Substitute for J. Frost's sentence. 

The orders for a considerable part of the second 
edition, which, fifteen days from the first, my 
publishers requested me to prepare, show that the 
work is acceptable in its original form. (32 words.) 
39 redundant words which constitute the diffuse 
style. 

A diffuse style is a great blemish. 

A diffuse style is found in the periods of the 
writers who presume that the reader not only 
wishes to learn that the person crossed the stream 
in safety, but to acquire a minute knowledge of all 
that exists within a conceivable distance of the 
place at which he crossed. Hence they are care- 
ful to enumerate the number, and kind of pebbles 
exposed to the eye — the number, and kind of them 
which are hid, — the number, and kind of them 
concealed by the mud, — the number and kind of 
them concealed by the sand, — and the number, 
and kind of them hidden by the stream itself. 
Nor are they indifferent respecting the relative 
size and shape of each pebble. Neither will they 
neglect to make particular mention that pebbles, 
in a philosophic respect, are minerals distinguished 
from flints by their variety of colors. To this 
they are careful to add that pebbles are composed 
of crystalline matter, debased by earths of differ- 
ent sorts, and in different degrees. Equally par- 
ticular are they to mention in detail that pebbles 
are beautified with veins, clouds, and numerous 
other variegations. To this they are sure to 
subjoin that, although, in general, pebbles are 
formed by incrustation round a central nucleus — 
some are formed by simple concretion. And that 
nothing which has any bearing upon the fact that 
the person crossed the stream safely, may go 
untouched, they affix that pebbles are Considerably 
used for paving streets ! ! 



156 



APPEAL. 



V. EASY STYLE. 

An easy style is the smooth flowing turn of a 
sentence ; as, 

1. " In the beginning was the word ; and the 
word was with God ; and the word was God." 

2. •' In him was life ; and the life was the light 
of men." 

3. " For God so loved the world, that he gave 
his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth 
in him, should not perish, but have eternal life." 

This style is an important attribute; and, 
though few sentences have it, none should be with- 
out it. 

The simplicity of the subject, is very favourable 
to this style ; as, 

1. "There cometh a woman of Samaria to 
draw water." 

2. " Jesus said unto her, Give me to drink." 
But, although the complexity of a subject, is 

not favourable to the Easy style, care, and skill 
can grace almost every sentence with more, or 
less of it. 

" The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast 
nothing to draw with, and the well is deep : from 
whence then hast thou that living water ! 

This sentence is stiff, formal. But even with 
this, and several other faults, it is better than a 
majority of the periods which grace, or rather 
disgrace, our English Grammars. The affected 
style which now mars it, may be made to give 
place to the easy style, which would improve it : 

The woman replied, The well is deep, Sir ; and 
thou hast nothing with which to draw : whence, 
then, hast thou that living water ? 

VI. ELEGANT STYLE. 

An elegant style is the turn, the trait, which 
consists, not only of the polish, richness, and 
purity of a sentence, but of the just formation, 
proportion, and distribution of its several parts ; as, 

1. Shall we suffer this man to break into our 
folds, — to bind our shepherds, and to take posses- 
sion of our flocks ? 

2. Forgiveness is the odour of the flower on 
which we tread. 

3. " Homer was the greater genius ; Virgil, the 
better artist : in the one we most admire the man ; 
in the other, the work. Homer hurries us with a 
commanding impetuosity; Virgil leads us with 
an attractive majesty. Homer scatters with a 
generous profusion ; Virgil bestows with a careful 
magnificence." Preface to Pope's Homer. 

That these sentences are elegant, can not be 
questioned. But they are not more elegant than 
the following : 

" In the beginning, was the word ; and the word 
was with God ; and the word was God." 

In this sentence, there is brevity, purity, force, 
propriety of arrangement, and embellishment. It 
contains a beautiful climax : 

The word is first represented to be in the very 



beginning, — coetaneous with God. It is next re- 
presented to be with God ; and is finally repre- 
sented to be God. 

" In the beginning was the word ; and the word 
was with God ; and the word was God." 

VII. EPISTOLARY STYLE. 

An epistolary style is the familiar, conversa- 
tional turn of a sentence, which is suited to 
letters, and correspondence by letters ; as, 

1. " Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and 
bring him with thee ; for he is profitable to me 
for the ministry." 

" The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, 
when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, 
but especially the parchment." Paul to Timothy. 

Although the epistolary style is a familiar, con- 
versational turn of the sentence, it does not follow 
that the sentence must be marred with errors. 
The improprieties in each of these sentences, may 
be corrected without any diminution of the epis- 
tolary style. 

1. Luke only, is with me. Bring Mark with 
thee ; for he would be profitable to me in the 
ministry. 

2. Bring the cloak which I left with Carpus. 
Especially, bring the parchment, and the books if 
convenient. 

VIII. FEEBLE STYLE. 

A feeble style is that trait of character, which 
consists of weakness, or a destitution of much 
force, strength ; as, 

A new Grammar of the English language, will, 
often without examination, be pronounced, by the 
superficial grammarian, a mere compilation ; bat 
those who are acquainted with modern philology, 
and those who understand the discrepancy be- 
tween the present state of the science of practical 
grammar, and the most approved methods of in- 
struction, are prepared to expect something more 
from an author whom they judge capable of avail- 
ing himself of the facilities offered, and of adapt- 
ing them to the interests of education. (80 
words.) Preface to Frazee's Gram. 

Although almost every blemish in a sentence, 
is unfavourable to force, strength, perhaps none 
is more so than a distinct mention of facts, and 
circumstances which a clear expression of the 
main things would readily suggest. The sentence 
which follows, has more strength, and brevity 
than that by Mr. Frazee : 

Many are disposed to pronounce a new gram- 
mar a mere compilation without regard to the 
state of the science, or the capability of the 
author. (25 words.) 

The interruptions produced by the constant in- 
troduction of unimportant matter, tend to enfeeble 
a sentence : 



APPEAL. 



157 



11 A new Grammar of the English language, 
will, often, without examination, be pronounced, 
by the superficial grammarian, a mere compila- 
tion." 

The reader is too much jolted by the tips, and 
downs of his vehicle, to receive a very deep Im- 
pression of the scenery which he passes. 

Or in a different figure : 

His sight is too often intercepted by the inter- 
jection of minors, to allow him to get a clear 
view of the major. 

Words, and monos which are rendered redun- 
dant by any circumstance whatever, exert a great 
influence in weakening a sentence : 

A new Grammar of the English language. 
As the mono, " of the English language" is on 
the title page, it is useless in this sentence. 

IX. FLORID STYLE. 

A florid style is the lively turn, the rich bril- 
liant trait which springs from the flowers of rhe- 
toric ; as, 

" I am the true vine ; and my Father is the 
husbandman." 

2. "O thou that rollest above, round as the 
shield of my fathers ! Whence are thy beams, O 
sun ! thy everlasting light ? When the world is 
dark with tempests, when thunders roll and light- 
nings fly, thou lookest in thy beauty from the 
clouds, and laughest at the storm. But to Ossian, 
thou lookest in vain ; for he beholds thy beams 
no more, whether thy yellow hair flows on the 
eastern clouds, or thou tremblest at the gates of 
the west. But thou art, perhaps, like me, for a 
season : thy years will have an end. Thou wilt 
sleep in thy clouds, careless of the voice of the 
morning." 

3. " Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt ; 
thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it. The 
hills were covered with the shadow of it ; and the 
boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars. She 
sent out her boughs unto the sea, and her branches 
unto the river." 

X. FLOWING STYLE. 

A flowing style is the trait of smoothness with 
which the words of a sentence strike the ear ; 
as, 

1. "He that receiveth you, receiveth me : and 
he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent 
me." 

2. " The head of every man is Christ ; and the 
head of the woman, is the man ; and the head of 
Christ is God." 

3. " Add to your faith, virtue ; to your virtue, 



knowledge ; to your knowledge, temperance ; to 
your temperance, patience ; to your patience, 
godliness ; to your godliness, brotherly kindncs? , 
and to your brotherly kindness, love," 

In the following construction, this style is some- 
what increased : 

To your faith, add virtue ; to your virtue, 
knowledge ; to your knowledge, temperance, &c. 

4. And the young men arose, wound him up, 
carried him out, and buried him. 

5. We shall conduct you to a hill-side, labori- 
ous indeed at the first ascent ; but else, so smooth, 
so green, so full of goodly prospects, and melodi- 
ous sounds on every side, that the harp of Orpheus 
was not more charming." 

XI. HARSH STYLE. 

A harsh style is the harsh, jarring, grating, trait 
in the character of a sentence ; as, 

1. "Henry is a young fine man." 

2. " He lives in that brick new house." 

3. The work now offered to the public, is 
claimed as an improvement in the following 
features, among others. Preface to Frazee's 
Grammar. 

4. "The verb is the second part of speech 
treated." Same Preface. 

The flowing style respects melody ; the harsh, 
a want of it. 

The flowing is derived from the position of 
words in respect to each other, and from the ease 
with which they can be uttered. 

Vowels impart softness; consonants, strength, 
to sound. The flowing style requires a just pro- 
portion of each. 

Short words are not so flowing as long ones ; 
and long ones which have an intermixture of long, 
and short syllables, are more flowing than they 
that are composed entirely of either. 

But, althongh the style denominated flowing, 
depends much upon the medium length of the 
words, and upon a just proportion of long, and 
short syllables composed of a just intermix- 
ture of vowels, and consonants, it depends 
greatly upon a just disposition of them in the 
frame-work of a mono. 

1. "Henry is a young fine man." 
Henry is a, fine young man. 

2. " He lives in the brick new house r) 
He lives in the new brick house. 

3. The work now offered to the public, is 
claimed as an improvement upon the grammars 



158 



APPEAL. 



in use, in the following features, among others .* — 
Frazee's Grammar. 

That which renders this sentence particularly- 
harsh, is the subjunction of the mono, " among 
others" Had the author omitted this mono, he 
would have conferred a great favour upon the ears 
of the reader! Was this mono amputated, which 
could be done with the loss of little blood, (for I 
do not believe there is a vein, or an artery in it,) 
I could apply the language of its author to the 
remaining part of the syllabane : 

"The sentence now offered to Us author, is 
claimed as an improvement upon that now in his 
Preface, in the loss of the following feature, — 
" among others ."' 

4. " The verb is the second part of speech 
treated" Frazee's Grammar. 

The use of '" treated" is not less offensive to the 
palate of the temperance man than to the ear of 
the good scholar. To exclude the idea of Bacchus, 
of should follow treated — treated of. And to bring 
a smile of approbation from the lips of Apollo, the 
sentence should read as follows : 

The second subject in Etymology, is the 
verb. Or, 

The first subject in Etymology, is the noun, — 
the second, is the verb. 

XII. LOFTY STYLE. 

A lofty style is the elevated, dignified, stately, 
sublime, trait of character ; as, 

1. "And God said, Let there be light, and there 
was light." 

2. " I will shake the heavens ; and the earth 
shall move out of her place." 

3. "The stars of heaven, and the constellations 
thereof, shall not give their light; the sun shall 

*Tlie numerous errors which deform this sentence, 
say distinctly, that its author is altogether incompetent to 
write a grammar. 

What ! is " The work now offered to the public, is claimed 
as an improvement,' 1 '' English ! ? 

1. The man who is now before the public, is claimed 
as a good man .' 

2. The horse which is in that stall, is claimed as a 
black one ! ! 

3. This horse is claimed as a stronger animal than 
that ! : 

The following is common, and good : 

" I claim this book as my property." But, / claim this 
book as an improvement upon that, is both extremely rare, 
and shamefully bad. 

I offer this book as an improvement upon that, is 
English. 

d Substitute. 

This Grammar is offered as an improvement upon 
similar works now in use. 

" The work now offered to the public, is claimed as an 
improvement upon the grammars in use, in the following 
features, among others.''' 

Was the work a face, its author might speak of its fea- 
tures. But, as it has no head, it can have no face; and, 
as it has no face, how can it have features ! ! 

" In the fo'lowing" particulars. 



be darkened, and the moon shall not cause her 
light to shine." 

XIII. LOOSE STYLE. 

A loose style is a laxity in the texture of the 
sentence; as, 

1. Most grammarians call names, nouns, but 
noun is a technical word, which means name, and 
therefore we will use the word name more gene- 
rally than the word noun, especially in the first 
part of this work ; for every body understands 
what the name means, which is not the case with 
the word noun. Frazee's Gram. 

When two words express ideas which have no 
bearing one upon the other, the words will not 
cohere ; as, in in — the rapidly — hence whence. 

The words, "hence whence," will not inter- 
weave, they express nothing which gives them a 
texture, a connection. The following words, how- 
ever, have a close texture : Very high — High trees 
— Good Leather — Leather shoes. 

When two, or more, mono9 express ideas 
which do not cohere, the syllabanes themselves 
can not cohere, can not have a texture, a con- 
nection; as, 

I. New York city is much improved, My horse 
is yet in the lot, His son could not learn the old 
grammar. 

As there is no relation among the ideas of these 
three syllabanes, there is no texture among the 
syllabanes themselves. 

Now, as words which stand together may have 
no texture, so they which stand together, may 
have a loose texture. 

"For every body understands what the word 
name means, (which is not) (the case) (with the 
word) (noun") 

The connection between the monoized, and the 
unmonoized part, is very loose, very slender. And 
this loose texture is a loose style. 

What is not the case with the word, noun ? 

Answer — It is not the case with the word, noun, 
that " every body understands what the word name 
means ! !" 

If we say, the word, imagination, has eleven 
letters, which is not the case with the word, noun, 
the two syllabanes have a close texture. 

What is not the case with the word, noun? 
Answer — It is not the case with the word, noun, 
that it has eleven letters. 

For every body understands what the word, 
name, means, which is not the case with the word, 
noun I .'" 

A Substitute. 

For every body understands what the word, 
name means, whereas but few understand what 
the word, noun, signifies. 

XIV. NEAT, OR TERSE STYLE. 

A neat, or terse style is that degree of excel- 
lence which a sentence derives from a close ob. 



APPEAL. 



159 



servance of all the Rules in Syntax, that can be 
applied to the sentence ; as, 

1. The sight is the most delightful of all our 



2. Our sight is the most perfect, and the most 
delightful of all our senses. Addison. 

The use ofmost is a violation of Rule XLVII. 
p. 333. 

2. " Our sight is perfect, and the most delightful 
of all our senses." 

While the omission of "most," rids the sen- 
tence of one solecism, it mars it with another : the 
writer does not intend to say that our sight is 
perfect. Hence th? use of perfect is a violation of 
Rule XLVII. 

To render the leading trait in the character of 
this sentence, a terse style, it must be resolved 
into the first sentence under this definition : 

"The sight is more delightful than any other 
of the senses" 

XVI. NEGLIGENT STYLE. 

A negligent style is the degree of disorder, that 
gives the sentence the same appearance which 
neglect in a housekeeper, gives her house ; as, 

1. The vowel sounds are produced with the 
organs open and without changing their position. 
Frazee's Grammar. 

That is, these sounds are produced with the 
tongue open, with the palate open, with the nose 
open, and with the teeth open • ! ! 

" The vowel sounds are produced with the 
organs open and without changing their posi- 
tion." 

As the mouth is one of these organs, Mr. Frazee 
implies that the mouth may change its position. 
But is it possible to move the mouth from the 
front to the side, or to the back of the head ! ! 

" And without changing their position.' 1 '' 

As the name of the agents of this action, 
changing, is not within the reach of the word, 
"changing^" changing should give place to 
change, or variation : and without any change in 
their position. 

A Substitute. 

The vowel sounds are produced by a continued 
effusion of the breath, with the mouth in one par- 
ticular form, and without a motion from any of 
the organs of speech. 

2. The power of connecting sounds by articu- 
lations or joints, is a peculiar characteristic and 
privilege of man above the mere animal creation. 
Frazee's Gram. ^ 

" The power of connecting sounds by articula- 
tions or joints." 

1. The word, articulation, is rarely, if ever 
plused.* 

2. The word, articulation, cannot be applied to 
the means of connecting. 

• This word may, perhaps, be plused when applied to 
the joints,or nodes, of maize, cane, &c. 



In anatomy, articulation is the joining, or 
juncture of the bones. The articulation between 
some bones, is produced by enarthrosis which is 
the ball, and socket joint. 

3. In botany, articulation is the connection be- 
tween the parts of a plant. 

3. In the formation of words, articulation is a 
distinct utterance. 

As articulation is the connection itself, the true 
sense of this sentence is nonsense. 

" The power of connecting sounds by articula- 
tions." 

That is, the power of connecting sounds by 
the connection of sounds ! ! 

" The power of connecting sounds by articula. 
tions or joints, is a peculiar characteristic and 
'privilege of man above the mere animal creation." 

The word, privilege, is not applicable to mere 
physical faculty, or strength. An incarcerated 
man may have the power to walk miles : but he 
may not have the privilege. 

The members of our legislatures have the pri- 
vilege of exemption from arrest in certain 



u The powers of a banking company are the 
privileges granted by the legislature." 

Here the word, power, is plused, powers, and is 
applied, not to physical ability, but to a mere legis- 
lative liberty to do, or to a mere exemption from 
penalty for not doing. 

" The power of connecting sounds by articula. 
tions or joints, is a peculiar characteristic and 
privilege of man above the mere animal creation." 

u The power is a peculiar characteristic of man 
above the mere animal creation." 

What is it which is here said to be above the 
mere animal creation : Is it the characteristic of 
man ? 

" The power is a peculiar characteristic above 
the mere animal creation." 

If this is the idea, the sentence is as much be- 
low many parts of the mere animal creation as 
man is above them. 

And, if the idea is that man is raised by this 
characteristic above the mere animal part of the 
universe, Mr. Frazee is degraded to the lowest 
rank of writers. 

" The power of connecting sounds by articula. 
tions, is a peculiar characteristic and privilege 
of man above the mere animal creation." 

" The power is a peculiar characteristic and 
privilege of man above the mere animal crea- 
tion." 

Perhaps the author's meaning expressed in 
English, is this : 

The power is a peculiar characteristic and 
privilege which raises man above the mere 
animal. 

A SUBSTITUTE. 

The power, and the privilege of forming arti. 
culate sounds, raises man above the mere animal. 



APPEAL. 



160 



If this power raises man above the members 
of the mere animal kingdom, it must be peculiar 
to man. Hence there is no propriety in the use 
of peculiar characteristic. Besides, characteristic 
means what is peculiar ! 

XVII. OBSCURE STYLE. 

An obscure style is the abstruseness of a sen- 
tence ; as, 

1. The literature of a nation cannot fail to con- 
tain within itself that which has made the nation 
what it is. First sentence in the Preface of, 
" Class Boole, of Poetry," by John S. Hart. 

This sentence evidently does not convey the 
author's ideas. Surely Mr. Hart meant to say 
something more than, 

The literature of a nation cannot fail to contain 
itself within itself ! 

" The literature, of a nation cannot fail to con- 
tain within itself that which has made the nation 
tvhatitis." 

Well, what is it which makes a nation what it 
is ? Why, it is its literature. Hence the reader, 
although not a member of the American Philo- 
sophical Society, must be philosopher enough to 
see that the following is the only meaning which 
the sentence conveys : 

The literature of a nation must contain itself 
within itself! ! ! That is, the value of a dollar 
must contain itself within itself. 

As it is not in my power to understand what Mr. 
Hart wished to express, I shall not attempt to say 
what change should be made in his period to ena- 
ble the reader to comprehend its true meaning. 
But, as I am fully satisfied that the sentence, like 
some societies, is encumbered with redundant 
members, I should feel justified in serving a Writ 
of Quo Warranto upon its learned author, requir- 
ing him to show by what authority he uses cer- 
tain words in it. 

The literature of a nation must contain that 
which has made it what it is. (not, fail, to, within, 
itself, the.) 

That " the nation" should give place to " it," is 
obvious from the use of him for the words, a man, in 
the following : 

The learning of a man must contain that which 
has made him (not, the man,) what he is. 

2. Those great ideas, which in the course of 
centuries, have been gradually developed by its 
master minds, are the moving springs, which have 
set the nation onward in the career of civilization. 
(Second sentence, same preface.) 

It is not easy to see whether Mr. Hart means 
that the moving springs are made of ideas which 
are in the process of development for centuries, or 
of those which are developed at different times for 
centuries. 

If he means the former, the language should 
be as follows — 

The great ideas which it required centuries to 
develope. 



If he intends the latter, the first part of the 
sentence might be as follows : 

The great ideas, developed for centuries. 

1. The great ideas which it has required centu. 
ries to develope, are the moving springs of a na- 
tion in its career of civilization. 

(Redundant words — which, course, in, the, of, 
gradually, have, set, that, onward, by, its, master, 
minds, 14.) 

2. The great ideas developed for centuries are 
the moving springs of a, nation in its career of 
civilization. 

(Redundant words — which, course, in, the, of, 
gradually, have, set, that, onward, by, its, master, 
mind. 14.) 

" Unity of a Sentence." 

There must always be some leading principle 
to form a chain of connection between the compo- 
nent parts of every composition, and there must 
be the same-connecting principle among the parts. 
John Frost's Exercises in Composition / 

But what has this sentence to do with the unity 
of a sentence ! ? Indeed, does it concern anything 
that man can comprehend ? True, one may form 
opinions respecting the meaning of the first part 
of it — but he cannot decide which of his various 
conjectures, is right. The first part — 

1. " There must always be some leading princi- 
ple to form a chain of connection between the 
component parts of every composition." 

The second part — 

" And there must be the same connecting princi- 
pie among the parts." 

That is, the connecting principle which is 
among the parts, must be the same with the chain 
of connection that exists among the component 
parts ! 

4. " The rising tomb a lofty column bore." 
Did the tomb bear the column; or the column, 

the tomb ? 

5. "And thus the son the fervent sire ad- 
dressed." 

Did the son address the sire ; or the sire the 
son? 

XVIII. PERSPICUOUS STYLE. 

A perspicuous style is distinctness of expres- 
sion. 

1. The rising tomb bore a lofty column. 

2. A lofty column bore a rising tomb. 

These ideas are distinctly expressed. In tha 
first, it is clearly expressed that the tomb bore the 
column. In the second, it is clearly expressed 
that the column bore the tomb. 

The perspicuous style may belong to the sen- 
tence which expresses an absurdity as well as to 
that which expresses a consistency. If the sen- 
tence expresses the absurdity distinctly, it has the 
perspicuous style; as, 

1. An absurd man is one who acts in exact 



APPEAL. 



161 



accordance with the clear dictates of reason, and 
sound judgment. 

2. A square block is round. 

Each sentence expresses what is absurd — but 
as it expresses the absurdity with perfect distinct- 
ness, each is distinguished by its perspicuity. 

XIX. SIMPLE STYLE. 

A si?nple style is the trait of character, which 
springs from a want of every thing like ornament, 
embellishment ; as, 

1. "A good man enjoys comfort in the midst 
of adversity." 

The same sentiment, in a sentence of the Florid 
style. 

" To the upright, there ariseth light in dark- 
ness. 1 ' 

2. We cannot find out the Lord fully. 

The Florid : 
Can we find out the Lord fully ? 

XX. STIFF STYLE. 

A stiff style is the constrained, formal, trait of 
character; as, 

1. In the Anglo-Saxon race, from the days of 
Alfred until now, men of superior genius, the 
original thinkers in each successive generation, 
have given birth to ennobling thoughts, which 
continue to endure, and are perpetuated not only 
in the language, but in the race itself. (46 words.) 
John S. Hart's Class Booh of Poetry. 

Perhaps the following construction will rid the 
sentence of the stiff turn : 

1. From the time of Alfred, the original thinkers 
of Anglo-Saxon blood, have given birth to many 
ennobling thoughts which will never cease to dis- 
tinguish the language, and benefit the race. 
Or, 

From the time of Alfred, the thoughts of many 
of Anglo-Saxon blood, have enriched, and ennobled 
the race. 

XXI. TUMID STYLE. 

A tumid style is a swelling, puffy, trait of cha- 
racter ; as, 

1. Englishmen, and Americans of the present 
day are living exponents of the thoughts and 
truths elaborated by the illustrious dead. Hart's 
Class Book of Poetry. 

Do the dead think ? 

How then can they have thoughts ? 

If the dead have no thoughts, how can either 
Englishmen, or Americans be living exponents of 
them ! ? I can easily understand in what way 
the living may be exponents, indexes, pointers, to 
the dead. But I cannot conceive how any thing 
can be an index to the thoughts of what does not 
think .' Of imports springing from, — Do thoughts 
spring from the dead? 

The use of exponent, and elaborated, gives the 
sentence a puffy, a tumid, cast. One is very 



learned — the other is almost exclusively tech- 
nical. 

A distinguished writer on English philology 
says — ' Avoid the use of technical terms, except 
where they are necesssary in treating of a parti- 
cular art, or science. 

Another still more distinguished, says, Avoid 
the injudicious use of technicals. '• Foreign, and 
learned words unless where necessity requires 
them, should never be admitted into our compo- 
sition." 

It may be well to give the sentence which pre- 
cedes the one under consideration. 

" We are what preceding generations have 
made us." " Englishmen, and Americans of the 
present day are living exponents of the thoughts, 
and truths elaborated by the illustrious dead." 
(28 words.) 

Why this change from we to Englishmen, and 
Americans ? ! * 

A SUBSTITUTE. 

We are what preceding generations have made 
us, — lively, bold, impressions of the thoughts, ori- 
ginated, and matured by our illustrious ancestors. 
(21 words.) 

XXII. VERBOSE STYLE. 

The verbose style consists in the use of more 
words than are necessary for the expression of the 
writer's ideas. 

New Books. — Mr. Leary, southwest corner of 
Second and New street, has recently published 
an edition of Mr. James Brown's English Gram- 
mar, a work that bears testimony to its author's 
deep, and successful research, and to his ability 
as a grammarian. We have used more than one 
occasion to speak of Mr. Brown's philological at- 
tainments ; and though we cannot agree with 
him in his nomenclature, we do justice to his 
abilities, and to the results at whieh he arrives. 
United States Gazette, 1847, edited by Joseph R. 
Chandler, Esq. 

[Seventy-nine words.] 

Corrected. New Books. — Mr. James Brown's 
English Grammar. (Leary southwest corner of 
Second, and New street.) 

We think Well of the Philological attainments 
of Mr. Brown, and verily believe that his works 
afford evidence of deep research ; but we do not 
like his nomenclature. [Forty -three words.] 

As the difference between forty-three, and 
seventy-nine, is thirty-six, and as the substitute is 



* Is it to embellish the sentence with the error of going 
from the first person to the third person ? 



162 



APPEAL. 



the same in substance with the original, the ver- 
bosity of Mr. Chandler consists of thirty-six re- 
dundant words 1 1 



CHAPTER XXXIV. 

ONE MUST LEARN THE TRUE RELATION OF IDEAS, OR 
BE INCAPABLE OF EXPRESSING THEM PROPERLY. 

The study of grammar by the new system, is 
an excellent discipline for the mind : the student 
is here constantly comparing, contrasting, reason- 
ing, and judging. In these exercises, he is unre- 
mittingly examining the relation of ideas. And, 
as this relation is the true basis of all just conclu- 
sions, whatever tends to fix the attention upon it, 
must hold a high rank as a means of maturing the 
mind. 

To one who desires to become thoroughly ac- 
quainted with the true relation of ideas, the study 
of the new system is interesting, and invaluable. 
But, to him who has no wish to become deeply 
skilled in this relation, the beauties of the new 
system are mere colors to the blind man. 

In the study of the new system, the attention of 
the pupil is given, not so much to the mere frame- 
work relation of word with word, and mono with 
mono, as to the rhetorical, and logical connection 
of idea with idea. Hence the new system, not 
only begets a taste for the study of Language, but 
it gives a capacity to understand, and to use it. 
It employs all the faculties of the mind to their full 
extent. And, while it may be clearly compre- 
hended even by children, it is not unworthy of the 
close attention of men, of scholars, of philosophers. 
But the study of the new system, is not the 
work of a day. To become familiar with 
this system of Grammar, demands a practice 
induced by a philological affection which nothing 
but the new system can beget, nourish, and 
mature. 

A capacity to distinguish the different parts of 
speech in English, the different cases, and genders 
of nouns, and the different modes, and tenses of 
verbs, never has enabled a man to use the English 
Language with propriety. The tenability of this 
position may be placed beyond all doubt by the 
many gross errors which all the old-school gram- 
marians commit even in their studied productions. 
No man can use this Language aright, without a 
critical knowledge of the exact relation of ideas. 
And, as the new system is the only medium 
through which a critical knowledge of this relation 
can be acquired, the study of this system of Gram- 
mar, becomes important to all. 

I have long been satisfied that the old Murray 
theory of English grammar, renders little, or no 
aid in the use of any Language. To prove this, 
I deem it my duty to embrace every opportunity 
to make exposures of the numerous solecisms 
which mar the writings of the most distinguished 



old-school grammarians of this, and other countries. 
Under this impression, I embrace the opportunity 
afforded by the publication of this book, to make a 
few reflections upon some of the many errors 
which pervade the writings of the best menders 
of Murray. 

I shall commence this task with a few reflec- 
tions upon some of the writings of Joseph R. 
Chandler, Esq., late editor of the United States 
Gazette. 

This gentleman is distinguished in Philadelphia 
for his knowledge of English Grammars. And, 
if I am not under a wrong impression, there are 
individuals among us, who verily believe that he 
is deeply skilled in English grammar itself. But 
while I freely admit that he is familiarly ac- 
quainted with many Grammar books, I feel con- 
strained to deny that he has much knowledge of 
grammar itself. And to sustain this position, I 
have here exposed a few of the many errors which 
deform his writings. 

Mr. Chandler is the author of the following 
notice : 

"New Books. — Mr. Leary, south-west corner 
of Second and New street, has recently published 
an edition of Mr. James Brown's English Gram- 
mar, a work that bears testimony to its author's 
deep and successful research, and to his ability as a 
grammarian. We have used more than one occa- 
sion to speak of Mr. Brown's philological attain- 
ments ; and though we cannot agree with him in 
his nomenclature, we do justice to his abilities 
and to the results at which he arrives." — United 
States Gazette, 1847. 

After a critical analysis of this notice, I have 
come to the conclusion that it exhibits much evi- 
dence of a want of capacity in Mr. Chandler to 
write with grammatical precision. 

As Mr. Leary is not a new book why should 
he be treated of immediately after the head, 
" New Books ?" As Mr. Chandler does not intend 
to give a notice of Mr. Leary, but of a book pub- 
lished by him, why should he be made the first, 
and central object of attention ? It does not seem 
to me that this arrangement is either grammatical, 
or logical. The following is something better : 

New Books. — James Brown's English Grammar 
has recently been published by Mr. Leary, South- 
west corner of Second and New street. 

Under this arrangement, the Grammar has its 
proper place, and legitimate rank. 

"a work that bears testimony to its author's 
deep and successful research, and to his ability as 
a grammarian." 

" bears testimony to its author's deep and suc- 
cessful research, and to his ability as a gram- 
marian." 

" Testimony" is here improperly used for 
evidence. This is rendered quite obvious from the 
consideration that " testimony" is from the Latin, 
testis, a witness. 



APPEAL. 



163 



Where the subject is moral or intellectual, 
evidence, not testimony, should be used ; as, " Of 
Swift's general habits of thinking, if his letters can 
be supposed to afford any evidence, he was not a 
man to be either loved or envied. — Johnson. 

" All that our Saviour did and said were evi- 
dences of his Divine character." — Crabb. 

The substitution of testimony for evidence would 
be an obvious solecism : 

All that our Saviour did and said were testimo. 
nies of his Divine character. 

" bears testimony to its author's deep and suc- 
cessful research." 

As there is nothing in bear, which demands to, 
this particle should give place to of. To bear tes- 
timony is to show, exhibit, or utter testimony. 
Hence the idea expressed by Mr. Chandler is 
this : 

a work that shows, exhibits, or utters testimony 
to the author's research ! ! ! The substitution of 
of for to will show that Mr. Chandler has worn 
the regal tonsure somewhat unworthily : 

" a work which bears testimony of its author's 
deep research." 

That is, which bears testimony in favour of its 
author's deep research." 

. " Hence a person makes another a present, 
or performs any other act of kindness as a testi- 
mony of (not to) his regard." — Crabb. 

Persons or things personified, bear testimony in 
favor of persons. — Crabb. 

'* The same came for a witness to bear witness 
of the light." (not to.) 

" He was not that Light, but was sent to bear 
witness of that Light." (not to.) 

But Mr. Chandler may attempt to justify this 
use of to by showing thit other writers have 
committed the same error ! I presume that the 
authority of Dryden himself may be found on 
the side of this solecism. But the sins of 
Dryden will never sanctify the iniquities of Mr. 
Chandler ! If Mr. Chandler can show that to utter 
testimony to a person, is synonymous with, to 
utter it, of a person, he can justify the use of to, 
without the blunders of others. 

" a work that bears testimony to its author's 
deep and successful research, and to his ability as a 
grammarian." 

The use of to before his, is a repetition of the 
error which makes Mr. Chandler say that the tes- 
timony in favour of the research was addressed to 
the research ! 

The word u ability " is improperly used for 
capacity. Capacity, says Crabb, is a mental en- 
dowment, and always supposes something ready 
to receive or hold : 

The object is too big for our capacity when we 
would comprehend the circumference of a world. — 
Addison. 

We say an able commander — but a capacious 
mind. 



A great capacity of thought. — Crabb. 
Sir Francis Bacon's capacity (not ability) seem- 
ed to have grasped all that was in books before. — 
Hughes. 

That " ability " may be applied to the mind in 
the sense of capacity, is not denied. But when it 
is so applied, it should generally be plural : 

" As for me, my abilities, if ever I had any, 
are not what they were." — Atterbury. 

But I consider the clause, M and to his ability 
as a grammarian,'''' a pleonasm. 

" a work that bears testimony to its author's 
deep and successful research, and to his ability as 
a grammarian." (Nineteen words.) 

Corrected, a work which affords evidence oj 
deep grammatical research. (Nine words — ten 
redundant words,) 

The next, which is the concluding part of this 
notice of my book, read as follows: 

" We have used more than one occasion to 
speak of Mr. Brown's philological attainments ; 
and though we cannot agree with him in his 
nomenclature, we do justice to his abilities, and 
to the results at which he arrives." 

A want of space prevents me from making 
many comments. I shall confine my attention, 
therefore, to the mere correction of the several 
errors which render this sentence strikingly ana- 
logous to its predecessor. 

" We have used more than one occasion." 
Was the occasion used by these gentlemen ? 
Who used the occasion ? We use pens, dishes, 
money, &c. But we speak on occasions. The 
word, occasion, however, is improperly used for 
opportunity. 

What Mr. Chandler intends to say, is, 
We have embraced more than one opportunity 
to speak of Mr. Brown's philological attainments. 
But if Mr. Chandler is unwilling to exchange 
occasion for opportunity, the sentence may read 
as follows : 

We have spoken of Mr. Brown's philological 
attainments on more than one occasion. Or, We 
have spoken, on more than one occasion, of Mr 
Brown's philological attainments. It is a fact, 
then, that Mr. Chandler who has for years worn 
the Royal robes in the kingdom of grammar, em- 
ploys " used " for on ! I But the use of occasion 
is bombastic, and redundant. The sentence, 
therefore, may be improved by the omission of on 
and occasion : 

We have spoken more than once of Mr. Brown's 
philological attainments. 

And though we cannot agree with him in his 
nomenclature, we do justice to his abilities, and to 
the results at which he arrives. 

We have used more than one occasion to speak 

of Mr. Brown's philological attainments; and toe 

do justice to his abilities, and to the results at 

which he arrives i 1 

I am under the impression that all who wish to 



164 



APPEAL. 



comprehend the connection between these two 
members of this sentence will be compelled to 
seek the gratification of their desires through Mr. 
C.'s late Grammar ! ! ! Is it possible that Mr. 
Chandler has undertaken to express in the pre- 
ceding sentence, what is conveyed in the fol- 
lowing : 

We have used more than one occasion to speak 
of Mr. Brown's philological attainments, and on 
each, we have endeavored to do justice to his abili- 
ties, and to the results at which he arrives. 

Mr. Chandler speaks of results as objects which 
can be approached like trees, houses, rocks, ships, 
SfC'. From his manner of speaking, no one who 
is ignorant of the nature of a result, would infer 
that a result is that which is produced by the ex- 
ertions of him who, according to Mr. C. arrives at 
it! From this part of the sentence the reader 
must infer that the result is a thing which may 
be far ahead of him who produces it ! Besides, the 
word, result, conveys the idea of a termination, a 
final stop — but arrives at imports a mere tempo- 
rary pause ! ! By the use of " arrives at" in the 
following expression, the speaker indicates that 
his journey does not terminate at Philadelphia, 
and that he expects to continue it from this city : 

" I arrived at Philadelphia last evening." 

Now, if the word, Philadelphia, implied the 
termination of the speaker's journey, with what 
propriety could " arrived at" be used with this 
proper name ? 

" and we do justice to his abilities, and to the 
results at which he arrives." 

Corrected: and we do justice to his abilities, 
and to the results of his labor. 

" though we cannot agree with him in his no- 
menclature." 

Is not the nomenclature one of the results? 
Certainly. And Mr. Chandler does justice to this 
result by pronouncing against it, without convey- 
ing the slightest allusion to any defectiveness 
in it ! ! 

" we cannot agree with him in his nomen- 
clature." 

This condemnation which is rendered absolute 
from its source, bears a striking analogy in its 
grammatical character, to the other parts of this 
notice. In it, the writer says that he cannot agree 
in nomenclature ! Although this notice by Mr. 
Chandler, abounds with mistakes, the most striking 
one is found in the fact that the author of it should 
set himself up as a judge of nomenclatures. Even 
the very sentence in which he gives judgement 
against the technical terms of my system, demon- 
strates that he is totally incompetent to form a 
just opinion of any part of grammar. He says 
That he cannot agree in nomenclature with me. A 
common man would say, 

We cannot agree with him respecting tea. But 
the Bashaw himself says, 

We cannot agree with him in tea ! ! 



We cannot agree with him in his nomen- 
clature. 

Corrected. We cannot agree with him re- 
specting his nomenclature. 

I. The notice in its original form. 

"New Books, — Mr. Leary, Southwest corner 
of Second and New street, has recently published 
an edition of Mr. James Brown's English Gram- 
mar, a work that bears testimony to its author's 
deep and successful research, and to his ability as 
a grammarian. We have used more than one 
occasion to speak of Mr. Brown's philological 
attainments; and though we cannot agree with 
him in his nomenclature, we do justice to his 
abilities, and to the results at which he arrives." 
[Seventy-nine words.] 

II. In its revised form. 

New Books. — Mr. James Brown's English 
Grammar. (Leary, South-west corner of Second 
and New street.) 

We think well of the philological attainments 
of Mr. Brown, and verily believe that his works 
afford evidence of deep research ; but we do not 
like his nomenclature. [Forty-three words.] 

As the difference between seventy-nine, and 
forty-three, is thirty-six, and, as the notice in both 
forms is the same in substance, Mr. Chandler has 
employed thirty-six redundant words ? What 
would Mr. C. think of a tailor, who, in making 
him a coat, should use double the quantity of cloth 
which his size requires ? And what would Mr. 
C. do with this coat, if, while some of its parts 
should be made of improper materials, others 
should be placed in improper positions ! ? Would 
he refuse to accept of the garment, or would he 
receive it ! ? And, if he should take it, would he 
keep it as a curiosity, or would he wear it as an 
ornament ! ? Was such an article to fall into my 
hands, I readily admit that I should esteem it 
highly — I should wish to keep it tor the accuracy 
with which it would portray the construction of 
hundreds of Mr. C.'s other paragraphs. But I 
should feel a greater interest in the tailor him- 
self — I should endeavor to couple this prince of 
the shears with the king of grammar, and exhibit 
the two as a brace of phenomena in the climax 
of curiosities ! 



CHAPTER XXXV. 

Within a few years, several new works on 
English grammar have been published in this city. 
It has fallen to my lot to examine them all, and 
from the impression which they have left on my 
mind, I feel somewhat prepared to appreciate tlie 
paragraph which the editors of the Ledger apply 



APPEAL 



165 



to the numerous compilers of English gram- 
mars. 

" The grammarians of our language, some of 
whom know little, and others nothing of the phi- 
losophy of any language, divide but into two parts 
of speech, a, preposition and a conjunction. They 
then define a preposition to be a word, without 
independent signification, placed before another 
word, showing some connection between it and 
some other word in the same sentence ; and they 
define a conjunction to be a word without inde- 
pendent signification, used to denote some rela- 
tion between two other words or members of a 
sentence. With these lights they leave their 
pupils to find their way; and considering the 
brightness of the lights, we need not wonder at 
the mistakes of the poor pupils." — Ledger. 

A book has been placed in my hands, of which 
the following is the title page : 

" English Grammar : or an Exposition of the 
principles and usages of the English language. 
By John S. Hart, A. M., Principal of the Phila- 
delphia High School, and member of the American 
Philosophical Society. Philadelphia, published by 
E. H. Butler & Co., 1845." 

That the Principal of the Philadelphia High 
School is embarrassed by the darkness which the 
Ledger ironically calls light, is obvious from the 
numerous errors which mar this title page. 

As the phrase " English Grammar" is the name 
of the science itself, it should not be applied to the 
book which treats of this science. An English 
Grammar means a book ; but "English Grammar" 
signifies, not the book, but the science on which the 
book treats. 

"The principles and usages of the English 
Language." 

Are not the usages of the English language its 
principles? "In language, usage i3 the founda- 
tion of all rules." — Webster. 

Does not the word principles, then, embrace as 
much as principles, and usages ? Has Mr. Hart 
even attempted to show the difference between the 
principles and the usages of the English language ? 
Perhaps by " usages" he intends to distinguish 
between the true principles of the English lan- 
guage and the manner in which he uses it! If so, 
the difference between principles and usages is 
strikingly illustrated through his whole book. 

" An exposition of the principles and usages of 
the English language." 

Can the word, usage, be applied to the thing 
used ? Does the usage pertain to the instrument 
used, or to the agent that uses it ? Can we speak 
of the usages of knives and forks ? 

Mr. Webster defines usage as follows : 

" Usage, treatment, use, or long continued use ; 
custom, practice." 

The substitution of the word practice, for usages, 
will clearly show that Mr. Hart's use of usages is 
very ill usage ! 



" Principal of the Philadelphia High School, 
and member of the American Philosophical 
Society." 

By the omission of a before member, Mr. Hart 
indicates that the relation which he bears to the 
American Philosophical Society is similar to that 
which he bears to the Philadelphia High School. 

"Principal of the Philadelphia High School, 
and member of the American Philosophical 
Society." 

As principal is without a, and imports an official 
relation, so member, when used without this par- 
ticle, and in connection with principal, must ex- 
press the same species of relation ! 

Principal of the High School, and President of 
the Philosophical Society. 

Henry Clay was then Secretary of State, not a 
Secretary. 

Principal of the High School, and teacher of the 
Model Grammar School. 

Does not the omission of a before teacher clearly 
indicate that the Principal of the High School is 
the only teacher of the Model Grammar School ? 
By the omission of a, then, before member, Mr. 
Hart has not only represented himself as an officer 
of the American Philosophical Society, but he has 
represented himself as the only member of the 
Society ! ! 

" English Grammar, by John S. Hart — Princi- 
pal of the Philadelphia High School, and member 
of the American Philosophical Society." 

By the omission of an before English, Mr. Hart 
unintentionally makes himself the author of the 
very science of English Grammar — and by the 
omission of a before member, he makes the 
American Philosophical Society to consist solely 
of himself! ! That these philological displays are 
not the true principles, but the mere usages, of 
the English language, cannot be doubted by any 
enlightened member of this community. 

The following substitute is constructed accord- 
ing to the principles, not the usages, of the Eng- 
lish language : 

An English Grammar — by John S. Hart, A. M., 
Principal of the Philadelphia High School, and a 
member of the American Philosophical Society. 

Are the numerous solecisms which pervade the 
periods of those who use the English language, as- 
cribable to an ignorance of the old theory of Eng- 
lish Grammar, or are they attributable to the un- 
soundness of the theory itself? 

In Mr. Hart's " Exposition of the principles 
and usages of the English language," I find the 
following definition of Grammar : — 

"Grammar is the science of language." 

Now, if the old theory of English Grammar is 
a. full development of the science of the English 
language, why do they who adopt this theory en- 
tirely disregard the true genius of the English 
language in their writings ? The following is the 



166 



APPEAL. 



first sentence of the preface of Mr. Hart's Eng- 
lish Grammar : 

" Four kinds of type are used in the following 
pages to indicate the portions that are considered 
more or less elementary." 

The ill arrangement of the several parts of 
this sentence, renders it clumsy. The following 
is something better : — 

To indicate the portions that are considered 
more, or less elementary, four kinds of type are 
used. 

" Four kinds of type are used in the following 
pages to indicate the portions that are considered 
more or less elementary. 

The use of indicate indicates that Mr. Hart 
does not know the difference between the words 
indicate, and distinguish. 

" To indicate is to point out, to show. Thus, 
fermentation indicates a certain degree of heat in 
a liquor. A heavy swell of the sea in calm 
weather, often indicates a storm at a distance." — 
Webster. 

But to distinguish is to separate one from 
another, or some from others : The farmer distin- 
guishes his sheep by marking their ears. — Web- 
ster. 

But does the farmer indicate his sheep by 
marking their ears ? 

" Four kinds of type are used in the following 
pages, to indicate the portions that are considered 
more or less elementary." 

The use of portions indicates that Mr. Hart 
does not distinguish between a portion, and a 
part. 

44 A page, a line, or a word, is a part of any 
book. Portion, and share are particular species 
of divisions, which are said of such matters as are 
assignable to individuals." — Crabb. 

That portion is not synonymous with part, may 
be seen by a substitution of portion for part in the 
following instances : 

!. The apple was divided into two parts. 
2. The apple was divided into two portions '. 

1. " All the parts were formed into his mind 
into one harmonious body." — Locke. 

2. All the portions were formed in his mind 
into one harmonious body I 

1. " The component parts of a fossil." 

2. The component portions of a fossil ! 

1. The people stood at the nether part of 
the mount. — Ex. XIX. 

2. The people stood at the nether portion of 
the mount. 

1. He visited various parts of America. 

2. He visited various portions of America. 

" Four kinds of type are used in the following 
pages to indicate the portions that are considered 
more or less elementary." 

Four kinds of type are used to distinguish the 
parts which are considered more or less ele- 
mentary. 

In, the, following, pages — indicate, portions. 



A substitute.— The parts which are considered 
more, or less elementary, are distinguished by dif- 
ferent, kinds of type. 

The following is the second sentence of the 
same preface : 

" The most important rules and definitions are 
printed in large type, italicised." 

Do we print in, or on type ? Do we italicise 
type! 

The omission of "printed" would improve the 
sentence : 

" The most important rules and definitions are 
in large type, italicised." 

Italicise, to distinguish a word by printing it in 
Italic characters.— Dr. Parr.— Todd's Johnson. 

The substitution of characters for type, will not 
only correct this gross error, but will demonstrate 
that Mr. Hart does not understand that science 
which he defines to be the science of language : 

The most important rules and definitions are 
printed in large characters, italicised. 

A substitute. — The most important rules and 
definitions are in large italic characters, {printed, 
type, italicised,) 

From the same preface. 

44 By this arrangement the author has been 
enabled to enter more at length than is usually 
done, upon difficult and important points." Who 
is the author ? John S. Hart, A. M. And who 
is John S. Hart, A. M. ? He is the author of 
English Grammar, Principal of the Philadelphia 
High School, and Member of the American Philo- 
sophical Society ! 

As Mr. Hart is all this— and, as he understands 
not only the principles but the usages of the 
English language, I presume that he may be 
asked to parse the word "is," which follows 
44 than .'" 

41 By this arrangement the author has been 
enabled to enter more at length than is usually 
done, upon difficult and important points." The 
nominative to 44 is" can be found neither in nor 
out of this sentence ! The nominative case to 
44 is," is not — it does not exist ! This use of 44 is," is 
one of the usages of the English language ! • If the 
old theory of English grammar is good for any 
thing, why does not its worth appear in the 
writings of those who understand it ? That Mr 
Hart understands this old theory cannot be doubted 
for a moment. What ! the author of a science 
not understand it ? It cannot be. A sculptor in 
Lisbon was visited in his dying moments by a 
monk, to confess him. As the monk held the 
crucifix before the dying sculptor's eyes, he ex- 
claimed, 44 See, here is God, whom you have so 
often offended — do you know him ?" " O, yes," 
replied the sculptor, 4t for I made him myself!" 

Had I the strength of him who bore away the 
gates of Gaza, I would exert it, not to harm Mr. 
Hart, but to benefit my fellow men. I am satis- 
fied that the old theory of English grammar is a 
preventive against the acquisition of the true con- 



APPEAL. 



167 



structive principles of the English language. To 
sustain this position I have undertaken to demon- 
strate that they who understand this theory best, 
write the worst. A man writes well in proportion 
to the degree of attention which he has given to 
the true structure of the language in which he 
writes. That Mr. Hart has given much more 
attention to the old theory of English grammar 
than to the true structure of the English language 
is obvious from his incapacity to use this language 
with grammatical propriety. In the following 
sentence there are several errors which no one 
who understands the true constructive genius of 
our language would be liable to commit, and 
which no one who understands the old theory of 
English grammar only, is able to correct: — 

" The distinction here insisted on is as old as 
Aristotle, and should not be lost sight of." 

To rid this sentence of its unnecessary prolixity, 
this should be substituted for " the :" 

This distinction is as old as Aristotle, and should 
not be lost sight of. 

(Redundant words — here, insisted, and on.) 

The next solecism which I shall notice, lies in 
oonnecting should with is : 

" The distinction here insisted on is as old as 
Aristotle, and should not be lost sight of," 

To repair this infraction nothing is necessary 
but to give the sentence a natural construction : 

This distinction, which is as old as Aristotle, 
should not be lost sight of. 

" The distinction here insisted on, is as old as 
Aristotle, and should not be lost sight of. 

The main proposition is, the distinction should 
not be lost sight of. But Mr. Hart, although 
" member oi the American Philosophical Society," 
so constructs the sentence that the main propo- 
sition is degraded to a mere minor, and a mere 
minor is promoted to the major ! ! 

The distinction here insisted on, is as old as 
Aristotle, and should not be lost sight of." 

The phrases, " here insisted on," and " lost 
sight of" are prominent blemishes. That is 
bombast ; this is contortion. Perhaps the follow- 
ing sentence, although not a paragon of excel- 
lence, is quite as good as that under conside- 
ration : — 

Of this distinction, which is as old as Aristotle, 
the grammarian should never lose sight. 
Or, 
The grammarian should never lose sight of 
this distinction, which is as old as Aristotle him- 
self, 

" The distinction here insisted on, is as old 
as Aristotle, and should not be lost sight of." 
" The distinction is as old as Aristotle." 
The expression of was after " Aristotle," must 
somewhat diminish the pleasure which the advo- 
cates of Hart's Grammar feel in recommending 
this work to popular favor : 



The distinction here insisted on, is as old as 
Aristotle was 1 1 

I presume that the Aristotle of whom mention 
is here made, must be he who was a disciple of 
Plato, and who founded the sect of Peripatetics. 
This distinguished philosopher was born 384 
years before Christ. He died at the age of 63. 
This distinction, therefore, which Mr. Hart thinks 
he has represented to be as ancient as the days 
of Aristotle, turns out, by the use of old for anci- 
ent, to be but 63 years of age ! The distinction, 
then, was first made in 1782 ! This important 
" distinction," consequently, is not quite so hoary 
as the author of English grammar has attempted 
to make it ! 

" The distinction here insisted on, is as old as 
Aristotle (was,) and should not be lost sight of." 

A Substitute. — Of this distinction, which is as 
ancient as Aristotle, the grammarian should never 
lose sight. 

This sentence, which is a ray of right from the 
very top of the High School, is sufficient to show 
every man his duty. Words are artful things — to 
prevent them from playing off their tricks upon 
him who uses them, they must be watched with 
great care and skill. They have hoaxed even the 
Principal of the High School in his very title 
page — they have deceived him in every sentence 
of his Preface — and even in the very paragraph 
before me, these hypocrites, if I may so call them, 
have, by concealing their real characters, trifled 
with his learning, his philosophy, and even his 
station, with the utmost impunity. I apprehend 
that the words in the English language will con- 
tinue to be edge tools in the hands of children, 
till some one who is thoroughly acquainted with 
the " usages " of them shall have invented what, 
for the want of a name, I must call a Logrometer, 
by which their real characters can be measured 
with exactness. 

It has long been a contested point whether 
language is a human production, or a Divine 
revelation. And, although I do not pretend to 
know which side has the preponderance, either 
of numbers, or logic, yet I prefer to range my- 
self with the advocates of the doctrine, that lan- 
guage is an emanation from men. Was lan- 
guage an emanation from God, nothing but an 
ignorance of this fact, could expiate the crime of 
sacrilege, which Mr. Hart would commit in the 
following sentence : 

" What is the difference of meaning between the 
short and long forms of this word ?" 

The following construction will show that 
" of" before "meaning" is improperly used: 

What is the difference between the short and 
long forms of this word, of meaning ? ! 

The use of in for of, would expurgate this 
noxious part of the sentence : 

What is the difference in meaning between the 
short and long forms of this word ? 



APPEAL. 



168 



That in is the proper word for this place, is 
rendered clear by the construction which proves 
that of is an improper one : 

What is the difference between the short and 
long forms of the word, in meaning ? 

Now, if language is a direct emanation from 
the Divine Being, what a gross infraction is this 
philological blemish ? But language has little of 
the sacredness which it would have, was it a direct 
gift from God to man. Language may be abused 
— and Mr. Hart, although the author of " English 
Grammar" seems made to abuse it ! 

" What is the difference of meaning between 
the short and long forms of this word ?" 

" The short and long forms." 

By the omission of the before long, Mr. Hart has 
made each form both short and long ! ! 

This may be illustrated so clearly that even 
Mr. Hart himself can comprehend it : 

1. The black and white ox. 
Here there is but one ox. 

2. The black, and the white ox. 

Here there are two — one is black — the other 
white. 

The seven black, and white oxen. 

Here each ox is partially black, and partially 
white. 

But, if we say — The seven black, and the white 
oxen, we have seven which are entirely black, and 
two, or more which are entirely white. 

1. The seven black, and white oxen. 

2. The seven black, and the white oxen are 
sold. 

The old and new testament. 

That is, the testament which is both, old and 
new. 

He has read the old, and the new testament. 

Here there are two testaments — one is old — the 
other, new. 

" What is the difference of meaning between the 
short and long forms of this word ?" 

1. " The short and long forms." 

2. The black and white oxen. 

1. The black and white ox. 

2. The short and long form ! ! 

That, an ox can be black and white, is quite 
generally admitted — but that the same form can 
be both short and long, is not so generally con- 
ceded ! ! To one who is not member of a Philo- 
sophical society, the rationale of this phenomenon, 
is not so obvious. 

"What is the difference of meaning between 
the short and long forms of this word ?" 

A Substitute. 

What is the difference in meaning between the 
short, and the long form of this word. 

Under the same page I find the following : 

" In course of time it became abreviated into 
its present form." 

" In course of time it," &c. 



Is this English ? If so, the following is 
English : 

In course of a year, he became ill ! 

I do not think that the use of the before course 
would be contrary to any of the principles of the 
English Language — but I am somewhat appre- 
hensive that it might contravene some of the 
usages of it ! 

In the course of time it became abbreviated into 
its present form. 

" It became abbreviated into its present form. 

To speak of abbreviating a thing into, form, is 
to employ language in a very singular form ! 

Would it not be somewhat better to say — In the 
course of time one became a. 

Or, 

In the course of time it assumed its present 
form ! 

Under the same page I find the following : 

" One expresses the idea of unity with empha- 
sis." " A expresses the same idea, only without 
emphasis." 

1 should be much pleased to see a technical dis- 
position of the word, only ! What can this word 
be called ? It is not an adverb. Under page 90, 
Mr. Hart gives the following definition of an 
adverb : 

" An adverb is a word used to qualify a verb, 
adjective, or adverb." 

But does only qualify a verb, an adjective, or an 
adverb ! ? He that can parse the word, only, as 
here used, deserves a medal for his meed ! 

" One expresses the idea of unity with empha- 
sis." "A expresses the same idea, only without 
emphasis !" 

The following is something better: 

One expresses unity with emphasis ; but a ex- 
presses it without emphasis. 

Let me now say a word, or two upon the doc- 
trine of these periods. 

" One expresses the idea of unity with empha- 
sis." "A expresses the same idea, only without 
emphasis." 

1. "One man followed me several miles." 

2. "A man followed me several miles." 

In the first, the idea is that one man only, 
followed me. In the second, the idea is that a 
man, not a dog, not a lion, not a bear, followed 
me. 

In the first, the leading idea is the number of 
animals that followed— in the second, the leading 
idea is the kind of animal that followed. 

That a has no reference to unity, is obvious 
from the answer to the following question : 

How many hats have you, John? 

I have a hat ! ! 

When the idea in the question turns upon the 
number, one must be used in the answer. 

How many hats have you 1 

I have one hat. 



APPEAL. 



169 



But where the idea in the question, turns upon 
the kind of thing', a must he used in the answer ; 
as, What have you in this case ? I have a hat. 

" The difference (between one and a) is this." 
" One expresses the idea of unity with emphasis. 
A expresses it, only without emphasis ! !" 

" Could one man carry this weight ? No — but 
a man could carry it !" 

In the first, says Mr. Hart, there is unity with 
emphasis. — In the second, there is unity without 
emphasis ! ! This, says he, is the difference be- 
tween a and one ! ! ! 

Could one man carry this weight ? No — but a 
horse could. 

A is so entirely destitute of number, that where 
unity is found in the major part of the sentence, a 
can not be used in the minor. 

This is obvious from the incongruity that is 
produced by the use of one, and a in the above 
sentence which should be as follows : 

Can one man carry this weight ? No — but two 

can. 

Or, 

Can a man carry this weight? No — but a 
horse can. 

I have already attempted to make a partial ex- 
position of the several errors which have found 
their way into the following sentence : 

"What is the difference of meaning between 
the short and long forms of this word?" 

I shall now undertake to expose the few sole- 
cisms that appear more occult than they of which 
I have already relieved this sentence. 

" What is the difference of meaning between 
the short, and the long form, of this word ?" 

" The short and long forms." 

The word, form, as here used, means shape. 
Hence a substitution of shape for form, will have 
a tendency to show the eccentricity of the idea 
which Mr. Hart here expresses : 

The short and long shape ! 

The notion of a short shape, is certainly sui 
generis! Nor do I know to what species, or 
genius, that of a long shape, belongs ! Had Mr. 
Hart employed primitive, and derivative, instead 
of short and long, he would have used words which 
have some relation to forms : 

What is the difference of meaning between the 
primitive, and derivative forms of this word'/ 

That a short shape is a singular one, must be 
obvious to all. But whether men, in general, can 
so readily see that " one" is a form of a, is not so 
clear ! On page 32, Mr. Hart, says, 

"A or an was originally ae, ane or one. These 
words, ae, ane and one are the long form of a. 
And a is the short form of ae, ane and one ! 

Mr. Hart wishes to express the parent relation 
which ae, ane and one bear to a. But can this 
relation be expressed by the word, "form ! ?" 
Does the word, form, convey any allusion to the 
relation which a mother, as such, bears to her off- 



spring ! ? Mr. Hart is not speaking of the forms, 
but of the etymology, of a. The word, a, has two 
forms — One is a ; the other is an. 

Can we speak of the Latin, verhum, as a form 
of the English word, verb ? Can it be said that 
" verbum" is the long form of " verb''' — and that 
" verb" is the short form of verbum ! ? A scholar 
would say that " verbum" is the etymon of" verb." 
But would a scholar say that one is the long form 
of a ! ! ? As well may it be said that an ox is the 
large form of a calf — and that a calf is the small 
form of an ox ! ! 

" What is the difference of meaning between 
the short and long forms of this word ?" 

A Substitute. 

What is the difference in meaning between the 
etymon of a, and a itself? Or — wherein does the 
meaning of a differ from that of its etymon? 

The following is the title page of another work 
by Mr. Hart. 

" Class Book of Poetry, consisting of selections 
from distinguished English and American Poets 
from Chaucer to the present Day. By John S. 
Hart, A. M., Principal of the Philadelphia High 
School, and member of the American Philosophical 
Society," (1845.) 

" From Chaucer to the present Day." 

I have read of Chaucer ; and I have some 
knowledge of his works — but of Mr. Day I am 
totally ignorant ! 

That he and his works exist somewhere is obvi- 
ous from the fact that Mr. Hart mentions him 
in connection with Chaucer himself! Still in Mr. 
Hart's whole Book, I have not been able to find a 
line in prose, or verse, written by this honored 
individual ! ! 

" From Chaucer to the present Day." 

It may be that the Mr. Day whom Mr. Hart has 
here placed by the side of Chaucer, is he who 
generally passes by the title of Monday, Wednes- 
day, Age, Century, Sfc. 

If so, Mr. Hart is a Grammarian indeed ! 

Upon the possibility that this is what the author 
wished to say, I offer the following Emendation : 

From the time of Chaucer to the present. 

" Principal of the Philadelphia High School, 
and member of the American Philosophical 
Society." 

As Mr. Hart is the whole of this society, the 
reader can judge from the following sentence, how 
much philosophy belongs to this Institution. 

Preface. (First sentence.) 
The literature of a nation cannot fail to contain 

within itself that which has made the nation what 

it is. " Class Book of Poetry, by John S. 

Hart." 

Well, what is it which makes a nation what it 

is ? Why, it is its literature. Hence the reader. 

although not member of the American Philosoph. 



170 



APPEAL, 



ical Society, must be philosopher enough to see 
that the following is the only meaning which the 
sentence conveys : 

The literature of a nation must contain itself 
within itself! ! That is, the value of a dollar must 
contain itself within itself! Mr. Hart says that 
he is member of the American Philosophical So- 
ciety — and who can doubt it ! ! ? 

As it is not in my power to understand what 
Mr. Hart wished to express, I shall not attempt to 
say what change should be made in his period 
to enable the reader to comprehend its true 
meaning. 

The literature of a nation must contain that 
which has made it what it is. (Redundant words, 
not, fail, to, within, itself, the. 

That " the nation''' should give place to " it," is 
obvious from the use of him for a man, in the 
following : 

The learning of a man must contain that which 
has made him (not, the man,) what he is. 

"2. Those great ideas, which in the course of 
centuries, have been gradually developed by its 
master minds, are the moving springs, which have 
set the nation onward in the career of civilization. 
{Second sentence, same preface.) 

It is not easy to see whether Mr. Hart means 
that the moving springs are made of ideas which 
are in the process of development for centuries, 
or of those which are developed at different times 
for centuries. 

If he means the former, the language should be 
as follows : 

The great ideas which it required centuries to 
develope. 

If he intends the latter, the first part of the 
sentence might be as follows : 

The great ideas developed for centuries. 

1. The great ideas which it has required centu- 
ries to develope, are the moving springs of a 
nation in its career of civilization. 

(Redundant words — which, course, in, the, of, 
gradually, have, set, that, onward, by, its, master, 
minds. 14.) 

" In the Anglo-Saxon race, from the days of 
Alfred until now, men of superior genius, the 
original thinkers in each successive generation, 
have* given birth to ennobling thoughts, which 
continue to endure, and are perpetuated not only 
in the language but in the race itself." (45 words.) 
John S. Hart's Class Book of Poetry. 

A SUBSTITUTE. 

From the time of Alfred, the original thinkers 
of Anglo-Saxon blood have given birth to 



many ennobling thoughts which will never cease 
to enrich the language, and benefit the race. (30 
words.) (15 Redundant words.) 

Or, 

From the time of Alfred, the thoughts of many 
of Anglo-Saxon blood, have enriched, and en- 
nobled the race. (18 words.) 27 Redundant 
words.) 

" Englishmen, and Americans of the present day 
are living exponents of the thoughts, and truths of 
the illustrious dead. Hart's Class Book of 
Poetry." 

Do the dead think ? 

How then can they have thoughts ? 

If the dead have no thoughts, how can either 
Englishmen or Americans be living exponents of 
them ! ? I can easily understand in what way 
the living may be exponents, indexes, pointers, to 
the dead. But 1 cannot conceive how any thing 
can be an index to the thoughts of what does 
not think ! Of imports springing from. Do 
thoughts spring from the dead ? 

The use of exponent, and elaborated, gives the 
sentence a puffy, a tumid, cast. One is Very 
learned — the other is almost exclusively tech- 
nical. 

A distinguished writer upon English philology 
says — " Avoid the use of technical terms, except 
where they are necessary in treating of a particu- 
lar art, or science." 

Another still more distinguished, says, Avoid 
the injudicious use of technicals. " Foreign, and 
learned words, unless where necessity requires 
them, should never be admitted into our compo- 
sition." 

It may be well to give the reader the sentence 
which precedes the one under consideration. 

" We are what preceding generations have 
made us," " Englishmen, and Americans of the 
the present day are living exponents of the 
thoughts, and truths elaborated by the illustrious 
dead." (29 words.) 

Why this change from we to Englishmen, and 
Americans ! 1 

Is it to embellish the sentence with the error 
of going from person to person ? from the first 
to the third. 

A SUBSTITUTE. 

We are what preceding generations have made 
us lively, bold, impressions of the thoughts, ori- 
ginated, and matured by our illustrious ancestors 
(21 words.) 



APPEAL. 



171 



CHAPTER XXXVI. 

In this country, the subject of education, has 
become the central point of individual, and col- 
lective, action. Indeed, so much has recently 
been done to place a sound education within the 
reach of all, that the present may be styled the 
educational epoch. To determine to what this 
change in the degree of interest, which all seem 
to manifest in the advancement of mind, is to be 
ascribed, is beyond the inductive powers of the 
most sagacious among us. Whether the social 
duties of men, are more clearly apprehended — 
whether the incompetency of the illiterate man (o 
discharge these duties, is more firmly established 
— or whether this spirit for the general diffusion 
of knowledge, is an innate one which the numerous 
recent bequeathments for eleemosynary schools, 
have enabled Americans to exemplify, is a subject 
upon which there is room for diversity of opinion. 
It is sufficient, however, that this spirit has been 
recently born among us : it is more important to 
train it to manhood than to trace out its exact 
pedigree. 

Under its influence, we have already erected 
numerous temples, and dedicated them to the 
great work of finishing the mind. Many of them, 
however, may be without those instruments which 
are indispensable to success in this God-like work. 
Every educational house may abound with cura- 
tors ; and every room, with professors ; and every 
professor, with rare pretensions. Still, as the pro- 
cess of sculpturing the mind, requires the skill of 
a Phidias, or a Praxiteles, in the marble, it be- 
comes important to employ the best artists and to 
use the best instruments, that the country affords. 
To procure these, the powers of the nation, must 
be rallied : men, and implements, must be called 
into sight, and undergo a rigid inspection. De- 
gree of skill in the artist, and excellence in the 
implement, should control the selection to be made. 
The number of years through which a particular 
theory has been in use, should exert no influence 
over the minds of the men who are entrusted with 
the important work of selecting the ministry of 
our school institutions. Nor should even the 
image of him whose name happens to grace the 
title page of a work, be allowed to flit across the 
minds of the men. The length of time through 
which a theory has been extant, can make it 
neither true, nor false. Nor can the standing of 
the man who has formed it, render it either good, 
or bad. 

As every tree is known by its fruit, so let every 
tree be judged of by its fruit. According to this 
rule of judging, of what value is that theory of 
numbers, which does not enable those who study 
it, to make numeral calculations with a higher 
degree of accuracy than those who study no 
theory whatever? For instance — D. who has 



acquired a thorough knowledge of this theory of 
Arithmetic, gives 306 as the correct answer to the 
following question. 

If 868 Dollars are divided among seven men, 
how many dollars will each man have ? 

operation by D. 
7) 868 (306 
41 



04 




38 
38 

30 



Of what value is that theory of Arithmetic, 
which does not enable those who study it, to work 
in numbers with greater skill than is exhibited by 
D. in the preceding operation? And, of what 
value is that theory of English Grammar, which 
does not enable those who learn it, to exhibit 
greater skill in forming sentences than D. has 
done in working this sum ? 

In the title page of John Frost's English 
Grammar, I find the following syllabane — 
" Exercises in orthography." 

In another part of this work, I find the follow- 
ing— 

" Exercises in prosody." 

If the use of in is right, that of on t must be 
wrong. But can one decide by any English 
Grammar, which is right ? 

On the third page of the same book, I find 
these words — 

" And it is precisely for the purpose of remedy- 
ing the evil and giving a more practical character 
to grammatical instruction that the following 
work has been prepared." 

Does not D. exhibit as much skill in the sci- 
ence of numbers, as does Mr. Frost in the science 
of language ? By the improper use of the word, 
following, Mr. Frost throws away three pages of 
his book ! It may be said however, that the error 
which Mr. Frost has here committed, should not 
be ascribed to any defects in the old theory of 
English Grammar. 

That the old theory should have a particular 
rule for the use of this, and ; all other similar 
words, I will not attempt to prove. But it should 
certainly have an exercise in which the pupil 
could be so drilled that he would instantly per- 
ceive that all similar applications are bad. That 
Mr. Frost has never been thoroughly drilled in 
the science of the English Language, is obvious 
from his blunders. But I do not think that he 
stands alone. Nor do I believe that his want of 
that degree of skill in the constructive principles 
of the English language, which is necessary to 



172 



APPEAL. 



. constitute him an English grammarian, is his own 
fault. The theory from which he has been taught, 
is incapable of making him a grammarian. Nor 
is his own theory better calculated to make gram- 
marians than that by which his teachers tried 
in vain to make him one. Mr. Frost seems to 
be under the impression that nothing but the pulp 
of quinces, or a confection of plums, well-sugared, 
is capable of interesting the learner of grammar. 
Hence, he attempts to tickle youth into studious 
habits with pictures 1 But has a man with a gun 
aimed at a wolf, the power to fix the eye, and the 
mind, of a pupil upon the subject of grammar ? 
That these pictures may catch the eye of a child 
for a moment, or two, is almost certain. But that 
there is any thing in them, calculated to enrich 
the mind with the exact, full, constructive, genius 
of the English Language, I seriously doubt. 

Knowledge must be acquired before it can be 
reduced to practice. He who writes without an 
acquaintance with the grammar of the Language 
in which he writes, wastes much precious time, 
and becomes confirmed in his habits of error. 
The child that understands the grammar of his 
language well, is free to think — hence he may 
write without that restraint, and trepidation, 
which must necessarily spring from an exertion 
to get something to say, and from an ignorance of 
the mode in which to say it. The child who is 
encumbered with the double task of studying 
tohat to say, and how to say, at the same time, 
will soon become disgusted with all attempts at 
writing. If the attention of the child is called to 
the construction of those sentences which he is 
made to parse, he will make much greater pro- 
ficiency in grammar than by writing upon pic- 
tures. But the old theory of English Grammar, 
has not the means of calling the attention of the 
pupil to the construction of the sentences which 
it requires him to parse. True, says Mr. Frost — 
but this defect in the old theory, must be sup- 
plied by oral instruction from the teacher. I 
should not like to depend upon the oral instruction 
of men who have nothing upon which they them- 
selves can depend ! 

Under page 112, Mr. Frost says, 

44 A sentence is a number of words so arranged 
es to form a complete proposition.'''' 

" In 1417, it required all the eloquence of the 
famous Gershon to prevail upon the council of 
Constance to condemn this proposition, that there 
are some cases in which assassination is a virtue 
more meritorious in a knight than in a squire." 
Robertson. 

That is, according to Mr. Frost, it required all 
the eloquence of Gershon to prevail upon this 
council to condemn this sentence, '■'■that there are 
some cases in which assassination is more merito- 
rious in a knight than in a squire 1" Is that 
Grammar worthy of adoption, which does not 
teach the difference between a sentence, and propo. 



sition ? And has the man who confounds a sen- 
tence in grammar, with a proposition in logic, 
ever been made a grammarian ? 

" I can not agree to the proposition of that gen- 
tleman." 

That is, I can not agree to the sentence of that 
gentleman ! ! 

The following is the first sentence in the pre- 
face of Mr. Frost's Grammar, — 

" In the title page, this book is called A practi- 
cal English Grammar." 

" In the title page" is a pleonasm. Still, no one 
who decides questions in grammar by the old the- 
ory, would be likely to reject this mono as a re- 
dundancy ; nor would any one whose mind has 
been thoroughly drilled in the genius of the Eng- 
lish tongue, use this mono as a necessary part of 
the sentence which it deforms. 

As the page to which allusion is made, is the 
common place for the display of the title, would it 
not be sufficient to say, 

This book is called a practical English Gram- 
mar. 

The second sentence in this author's preface, 
reads as follows, 

" The author has endeavored to give it a just 
claim to this title, by rendering it strictly practi- 
cal throughout." 

The second is succeeded by the following, 

44 He has observed that most of the Grammars 
now in use appear to consider the English Lan- 
guage as having been formed not for the purpose 
of being spoken and written, but merely for the 
purpose of being parsed." 

This sentence is burdened with numerous ple- 
onasms. 

44 He has observed that" is a redundancy which 
even the ear would reject. The repetition of the 
sentence without this mono, is sufficient to estab- 
lish this position. 

"Most of the Grammars now in use, appear to 
consider the English Language as having been 
formed not for the purpose of being spoken and 
written, but merely for the purpose of being 
parsed." 

The next pleonasm with which this sentence is 
encumbered, is the words, "appear to." That 
these words are pleonastic, will be rendered clear 
by omitting them. 

Most of the Grammars now in use, consider the 
English Language as having been formed not for 
the purpose of being spoken and written, but 
merely for the purpose of being parsed" 

But I may be told that the omission of " appear 
to," produces a slight change in the sense of the 
sentence. Mr. Frost intends to say that English 
Grammars, in general, consider the English Lan- 
guage formed for the mere purpose of being 
parsed ; or, that they do not do this, although they 
appear to do it. If he intends the former, why 
does he use the word, appear ; and, if he means 



APPEAL. 



173 



the latter, why does he speak of these works as 
though he meant the former ? That he means to 
say that these works do consider that the English 
Language is formed for the mere purpose of being 
parsed, is clearly shown in the fourth sentence of 
his preface — 

" Accordingly, parsing is made the grand object 
of grammatical instruction, and it is considered 
that if a boy can parse correctly, and fluently, he 
is a good grammarian." 

11 Most of the Grammars now in use consider 
the English Language as having been formed, 
not for the purpose of being spoken and written, 
but merely for the purpose of being parsed." 

The use of " now " makes the author say what 
he does not mean. 

Mr. Frost does not intend to convey the idea 
that there has been a time when Grammars in 
general, did not treat the English Language as 
though it had been formed for no purpose but 
that of being parsed. Yet the word, now, com- 
pels him to say this. 

He is now in my employ. That is, he has 
not always been in it. 

" Most of the Grammars in use consider the 
English Language as having been formed not 
for the purpose of being spoken and written, but 
merely for the purpose of being parsed." 

I consider John as having been well taught, is 
not English. I consider that John has been well 
taught, is English. The syllabane, as having, in 
the preceding sentence, is offensive even to the 
ear. The following is something better — 

Most of the Grammars in use, consider that 
the English Language has been formed. 

But " consider " is the wrong word. Let it be 
exchanged for treat : 

Most of the Grammars in use treat of the 
English Language as though it had been formed, 
not for the purpose of being spoken and written, 
but merely for the purpose of being parsed. 

But, who, without the aid of this sentence, would 
have conceived the idea that the mode of using a 
language, is the object for which it is formed!? 
According to Mr. Frost, the English Language is 
a medium which has been formed for the simple 
purpose of being spoken, and written 1 '. 

My own opinion respecting the purpose for 
which the English Language has been formed, is 
very different from that of Mr. Frost. I am in- 
clined to the belief that to communicate our 
thoughts, is the purpose for which Language is 
formed. 

" He has observed that most of the Grammars 
now in use, appear to consider the English Lan- 
guage as having been formed not for the purpose 
of being spoken, and written, but merely for the 
purpose of being parsed.' 1 '' 

That is, the Greek Grammars, the Latin Gram- 
mars, the French Grammars, the Spanish Gram- 



mars, and the English Grammars, " now in use, 
appear to consider the English Language as hav- 
ing been formed not for the purpose of being 
spoken, and written, but merely for the purpose 
of being parsed 1 .'" 

A grammarian would say, 

" Most of the " English Grammars appear to 
consider our Language &c. 

" He has observed that most of the Grammars 
now in use appear to consider the English Lang- 
guage as having been formed not for the purpose 
of being spoken and written, but merely for the 
purpose of being parsed." (38 words.) 

Most English Grammars, treat our Language 
as though it had been formed, neither to be spoken 
nor written, but merely to be parsed. (23 
words.) 

38 
23 

15 

No fewer than fifteen redundant words ! 

But this exuberance in pleonasm is not the only 
fault which mars this singular sentence : it is 
deformed by gross infractions of some of the 
laws of Rhetoric. Mr. Frost is writing, not upon 
the purpose of the English Language, but upon 
the grammar of it. And, in the first two sentences 
of the paragraph of which the sentence under 
consideration, is the third, the grammar is his 
theme. 

In the third sentence the author has a confused 
notion of a purpose — and this he ascribes to the 
language instead of the gram mar of it — 

" To consider the English Language as having 
been formed not for the purpose of being spoken 
and written, but merely for the purpose of being 
parsed.' 1 '' 

To restore the unity which is lost by the con- 
fusion of the author, I would suggest the follow- 
ing- 
Writers in general, upon this subject, seem to 
consider that the object of grammar, is not so 
much to enable the pupil to speak, and write with 
propriety, as to enable him to parse with ac- 
curacy. 

The purpose of language is to express our ideas 
— but the purpose of grammar, is to express them 
with propriety, 

Before leaving the Grammar, compiled by Mr. 
Frost, it may be proper to say that no ill feeling 
toward him, has induced me to make his errors 
the subject of critical reflections. My position is 
that no person can be made a grammarian by the 
old British system of English Grammar. And, to 
sustain this position, I have been compelled to de- 
monstrate the inability of those who have learned 
it, and written by it, to express their ideas with 
propriety. I have taken the writings of Mr. Frost 
because his notoriety as an author, and his late 
station in the High School as a professor, have 
made an impression upon the public mind alto 



174 



APPEAL. 



gether favourable to his abilities as a grammarian, 
and rhetorician. I have examined his Grammar 
with care — and, although it comprises 204 duo- 
decimo pages, I have not found one correctly 
formed sentence in it ! And I challenge any one 
to demonstrate that there is a sentence in the whole 
work, comprising as many as seven words, which 
is so formed. 

The next errors upon which I intend to com- 
rae t, deform a work, entitled, 

" Easy Exercises in composition : designed for 
the use of beginners. ByJohn Frost, A. M., Pro- 
fessor of Belles Lettres in the High School of 
Philadelphia. Fifth Edition — Stereotyped" 

This work is a treatise upon Rhetoric. And, 
considering the high rank which Rhetoric holds 
in the science of English philology, it is not un- 
reasonable to presume that professor Frost has 
acquitted himself in this work with a better grace 
than he has done in his Grammar. 

I have made no reflections upon the numerous 
errors in the title page of the Grammar of Mr. 
Frost. And I am somewhat inclined to say no- 
thing of those in the title page of his Rhetoric. 
But duty requires that I should not gratify this 
inclination. 

" Easy Exercises in composition." 

Could Mr. Frost presume that the word, com- 
position, unaided by any other word, would restrict 
itself to the idea of forming sentences? Does Mr. 
Frost teach that a word may be employed in its 
generic sense when the idea to be expressed, is a 
specific one ? Has the word, composition, the 
innate power to abandon the numerous other 
species of composition to which it is applicable, 
and to confine itself exclusively to the formation 
of sentences ? 

The title of a book is that part which specifies 
the particular subject on which the work treats. 
Any want of perspicuity in this portion of a book, 
strongly implies that the author is hardly adequate 
to the task of writing Grammars, and Rhetorics ! 

"Title, the inscription in the beginning of a 
book, specifying the subject of the work," Web- 
ster. 

Does the word, composition, define the subject 
of the book under consideration ? " This word is 
derived from compose which means to form a com- 
pound, or one entire body, or thing, by uniting 
two, or more things, parts, or individuals ; as, to 
compose an army of raw soldiers, the parliament 
of Great Britain, is composed of two houses, Lords, 
and Commons, The senate of the United States, 
is composed of two senators from each state." 
Webster. 

" Composition, in a general sense, — the act of 
composing, or that which is composed. We speak 
of the composition of medicines by mixing divers 
ingredients, and call the whole mixture a compo- 
sition." — Webster. 



1. " A composition of sand and clay." 

2. " Heat, and vivacity in age, is an excellent 
composition for business. 

3. " Composition which looks like marble." 

4. " Composition,'' the act or art of forming 
tunes." 

5. " Contemplate things first in their simple na- 
tures, then view them in their compositions." 

6. " Composition, the disposition, or arrange- 
ment of figures in a picture." 

7. " Ben Johnson speaks of the composition of 
gesture." 

8. " The composition of motion, &c., in a 
speaker." 

9. " Composition, mutual agreement to terms." 
10. "A bankrupt is cleared by composition with 

his creditors." — Webster. 

The word composition is frequently applied in 
law, music, elocution, logic, chemistry, paint- 
ing, Sfc. 

The title page upon which I am commenting is 
" Easy Exercises in. Composition : Designed for 
the vse of Beginners." Beginners in what? 
beginners in chemistry, beginners in music, begin- 
ners in elocution, beginners in logic, or beginners 
in painting .' ? Had Dr. Webster given the follow- 
ing as the title page of his late Dictionary, the 
world would have made no cail for the second 
edition : 

A Dictionary of Language : 
Who would not see a destructive defect in this 
title ? Language is a word which applies to one 
language as much as to another ? And does not 
the word composition apply to one composition 
as much as to another. And is there not 
as much reason for specifying the particular 
composition of which Mr. Frost attempts to speak 
as there is for designating the particular language 
which Mr. Webster attempts to develop ? 

The book to which these reflections relate, is 
designed to furnish the tyro in the construction of 
English sentences, with a variety of subjects for 
his pen. The method which the author has 
adopted for the accomplishment of this object, is 
the bringing of various things, and sceneries, 
before the pupil's eye through the medium of 
pictures. The objects, and sceneries are intended 
to be described by the learner. This remark 
upon the design, and methods of the book, will 
enable the reader to determine which of the two 
following syllabanes is the true title of the 
work. 

1. "Easy Exercises in composition, designed for 
the use of beginners" 

2. Easy Exercises in the description of simple 
objects, and scenes, designed for the use of begin' 
ners in English composition. 

I have proceeded thus far upon the ground that 
the book which is the subject of these comments, 
is made up of Exercises. As the work, however, 



APPEAL. 



175 



is not composed of exercises in description, but 
of objects for description, where is the principle, 
either in grammar, or belles-lettres, that sustains 
the use of the words, " Easy Exercises 1 ?" A rule 
which is universal in its application, is that the 
words employed, should be called fir by the ideas 
to be communicated. Had Professor Frost the 
ideas which demand the use of the words, " Easy 
Exercises ?" If so, he had in his mind, ideas 
which he did not put into his book ! There are 
no exercises in his book which he denominates 
" Easy Exercises in composition :" his work is a 
book of subjects, (objects and scenes) for descrip- 
tion » What! Is the picture of a greyhound an 
exercise ! ? .' Is an alligator an exercise !? ! I feel 
confident that there is no pupil, either in High, or 
Low schools, who will say with this worthy Pro- 
fessor, that either the exercise which is demomi- 
r.ated greyhound, or alligator, is of easy per- 
formance ! ! 

1. " Easy Exercises in Composition, Designed 
for the use of Beginners." 

THE SUBSTITUTE. 

2. " Appropriate objects, and scenes for descrip- 
tion by Beginners in English Composition, " by 
John Frost, Professor of Belles-Leltres in the 
High School of Philadelphia." 

Who, from the first of the above titles, would 
ever dream that the work is a book of butterflies, 
greyhounds, alligators, &c. ? And, who, on 
learning the true character of this book, from the 
second of the above titles, cannot see that the 
calling of it, " Easy Exercises," is a shameful 
misnomer, equalled only, by that of styling its 
author, " Professor of Belles -Lettres ?" 

" Preface to the first edition." 

" Few words of apology are required for the 
publication of this little volume. The circum- 
stances under which it was prepared, are simply 
these :" 

(A statement of the circumstances, follows this 
colon.) 

Who that does not write by the old theory of 
English Grammar, as improved by John Frost, 
Samuel Kirkham, Goold Brown, or some other 
novus homo, would presume that the two periods 
in the above paragraph, bear any relation one to 
the other ? This paragraph reminds me of the 
following period — 

" Ships move John is a pupil New York market 
is out of repair .'" 

What has the motion of ships to do with the 
pupilage of John ; or what has the delapsed con- 
dition of the New York market house to do either 
with the pupilage of John, or with the motion of 
ships ? And what have the circumstances under 
which a book is written, to do with the apology 
for publishing it ! ? 



Is it to be presumed that the means by which 
D. murders S. and T. is an apology for murder- 
ing them ! ? I admit, however, that the circum- 
stances stated by Mr. Frost, are an apology for 
publishing the book. .But the error of this l. l. d. 
professor, lies in calling them the circumstances 
under which the book was written ! 

" Few words of apology are required for the 
publication of this little volume. The circum- 
stances under which it icas prepared are simply 
these :" 

With the permission of Doctor Frost, I would 
offer the following amendment : 

The circumstances which induced me to publish 
it are these. 

Few words of apology are required from Doctor 
Frost for the error which he has here committed : 
he writes by the old theory which, he says, he 
desires " to leave untouched /" 

" Few words of apology are required for the 
publication of this little volume. The circum- 
stances under which it was prepared are simply 
these." — (23 words.) 

Few words of apology are required for the pub- 
lication of this little volume. The circumstances 
which induced me to publish it, are these : 

The misnomer, however, in the second sentence 
of the paragraph, is but one of the many defects 
with which the paragraph abounds. The tenses 
are wrong — indeed all is wrong. What Doctor 
Frost wished to express, can be communicated in 
one short sentence : 

The following circumstances are the apology 
for the appearance of this little volume : (13 
words.) 

"Having recently resigned the general superin- 
tendence of a seminary where many different 
branches of education were taught, and entered 
upon a sphere of duty where my whole atten- 
tion is directed to the subject of English Belles 
Lettres, I felt more than ever &c. 

(This sentence is also a curiosity, but a want 
of space prevents me from touching it now.) 

" Preface to the second edition." 

The circumstance of my being called upon by 
the publishers to prepare a second edition of these 
Exercises in fifteen days after the publication of 
the first, and the notification which I received at 
the end of a month, that the first three thousand 
copies were sold, and a considerable part of a 
second edition ordered, afford a presumption 
that the work has met the approbation of the 
public in its original shape." 

I shall not stop to express any doubts which I 
may entertain respecting the truth of the state- 
ment, made in this strangely constructed sen- 
tence. 



176 



APPEAL. 



"The circumstance of my being- called upon 
by the publishers to prepare a second edition." 

There is certainly a good degree of formality in 
the phrase, my being called upon by the publishers, 
— perhaps the whole is too stately, and authorita- 
tive for the occasion. The syllabane, called upon, 
seems to imply that the publishers were officers. 
This idea is much strengthened from the fact 
that they demanded according to the language 
of the sentence, a preparation of a second edition 
in fifteen days! 

" The circumstance of my being called upon 
by the publishers to prepare a second edition of 
these exercises in fifteen days!" 

What is Mr. Frost required to do in fifteen 
days? 

To prepare a second edition of these exercises. 
This is what Mr. Frost says, but, not what he 
meant to say. The learned professor intended to 
say that his publishers called upon him in fifteen 
days from the time of the publication of the first 
edition. Perhaps the following would express Mr. 
Frost's ideas : 

The circumstance of my being called upon by 
the publishers in fifteen days after the publication 
of the first edition, to prepare a second, affords 
&c. 

I must invite close attention to the sentence as 
constructed by Mr. Frost : 

" The circumstance of my being called upon 
by the publishers to prepare a second edition of 
these exercises in fifteen days after the publication 
of the first, affords a presumption that the work 
has met the approbation of the public in its origi- 
nal shape.' 1 '' 

Here, in attempting to say that his publishers 
called upon him fifteen days after the publication 
of the first edition, to ask him to prepare a second, 
he makes himself affirm by a gross error in con. 
struction, that they wish him to prepare a second 
edition within fifteen days from the time of the 
publication of the first! And this Professor of 
Belles-Lettres, is still under the impression that 
he does say that in fifteen days from the time of the 
first publication of his work, he was spoken to by 
his publishers to prepare a second edition ! 

The old theory of grammar, then, has taught 
professor Frost, that, to specify the time when a 
person is spoken to to do a piece of work, the writer 
must place the mono, denoting the time, in juxta- 
position with that which specifies what is to be 
done ! If, therefore, I wish to inform D. at what 
particular time S. and P. spoke to me to write a 
deed, I must construct the sentence as follows — 

1. I was spoken to by S. and P. to draw them 
a deed in fifteen days after the sale of the land ! ? 

/ wish to introduce a Grammar which will 
teach professor Frost to construct the sentence in 
this way : 

2. I was spoken to by S. and P. in fifteen days 
after the sale of the land, to draw them a deed. 



Does it appear that professor Frost is better in 
grammar, and rhetoric, than D. is in arith- 
metic ? 

The sentence under consideration, is introduced 
as a puff. There are three things which, in the 
opinion of its author, would exert a salutary influ- 
ence in giving him money, and fame. These are 
the premature call of his publishers, the informa- 
tion that the first three thousand copies were sold, 
and a. part of a second edition ordered. 

One of two things is certain : either the learned 
professor was too much elated with a little brief 
success ; or he found, from the burden of the 
shelves of his publishers, that his book was a mere 
drug. From the intelligence of this community, 
I am inclined to believe that the latter was the 
case. The author, out of a praise worthy pity to 
the oppressed shelves, enters into a system of 
management. He felt for these boards which 
had long been groaning under the burden of all 
the first yield of his plates ! " These three thou- 
sand copies, replete with the nimblest, strongest, 

finest, animals that ever graced wood, or dale, a 

perfect menagerie, must remain no longer an eating 
ulcer in the form of rent, and interest ."' I must 
have a new page. This must be incorporated 
with each copy in a way which will justify the 
pretension that a second edition is demanded. 
This page must commence with, 

" The circumstance of my being called upon by 
th e publishers to prepare a second edition of these 
Exercises in fifteen days after the publication of 
the first, and the notification which I received at 
the end of a month, that the first three thousand 
copies were sold, and a considerable part of the 
second edition ordered, afford a presumption that 
the work has met the approbation of the public in 
its original shape ! ! " 

This sentence shows the doctor to be nimblc- 
witted indeed — it bespeaks skill in plans — but ig- 
norance in language ! 

The sentence comprises seventy words, and is 
marred by thirty gross errors in grammar, and 
rhetoric! These obliquities I shall not attempt to 
expose at this time. I hold myself bound, how- 
ever, to demonstrate their existence whenever it 
may please Mr. Frost, and his friends, to demand 
the proof. 

Before leaving the sentence, I will place it in 
juxtaposition with the one which I offer as a sub- 
stitute. 

1. " The circumstance of my being called upon 
by the publishers to prepare a second edition of 
these Exercises in fifteen days after the publica- 
tion of the first, and the notification at the end 
of a month, that the first three thousand copies 
were sold, and a considerable part of the second 
edition ordered, afford a presumption that the work 
has met the approbation of the public in its origi- 
nal shape." (70 words.) 



APPEAL. 



177 



2. The sale of the first throe thousand copies, 
and a call for a considerable part of a second edi- 
tion which, fifteen days after the first, my publish- 
ers requested me to prepare, show that the work is 
acceptable in its original form. (41 words.) 

70 

41 

29 redundant words! ! 

But Mr. Frost's ideas may be communicated in 
fewer words still. 

The sale of the first edition, and the orders for 
a considerable part of a second which, fifteen days 
after the first, my publishers requested me to pre- 
pare, show that the work is acceptable in its origi- 
nal form. (37 words.) 

70 
37 

33 redundant words ! 

• The sentence may still be abridged. The words 
the, sale, of, the, first, edition, and and, are pleon- 
astic: the sale of the first edition is implied from 
the orders for a part of the second. 

The orders for a considerable part of the second 
edition which, fifteen days from the first, my 
publishers requested me to prepare, show that the 
work is acceptable in its original form. (32 
words.) 

70 

32 

38 redundant words ! ! 

Under page 104, I find the following Rule : 

"Rule I. A sentence ought to be divested of 
all redundant words !" 

" Some of the pupils at the High School, have 
occasionally made a copy of the picture at the 
head of the Exercises ; and on one or two occa- 
sions I have thus received drawings with the 
lead-pencil or pen, very cleverly executed." (Same 
Preface.) 

"And on one or two occasions I have thus re- 
ceived drawings with the lead-pencil or pen." 

An occasion is an occurrence, casualty, inci- 
dent, — something distinct from the ordinary course 
or regular order of things. Webster. 

Now, what occurrence, distinct from the ordi- 
nary course of things, at the High School, consti- 
tuted the occasion on which Mr. Frost received 
these drawings? Was the occurrence which con- 
stituted this occasion, an unusual examination of 
pictures, which was made at the High School? 
Was the occurrence which constituted this occa- 
sion, a singularly violent storm which disturbed 
the High School to an uncommon degree ? In 
short, was there any occasion on which the learned 
professor of Rhetoric received these drawings of 
which he speaks ? None ! Mr. Frost does not 
mean what he says ! He intends to say that he 
received one, or two drawings. In attempting to 



say this, however, he has from a culpable igno- 
rance of the word, occasion, made himself affirm 
that there were some particular events which 
happened in the High School, that were the occa- 
sions on which he received these drawings! ! 
I will now reject this redundancy : 
" Some of the pupils at the High School, have 
occasionally made a copy of the picture at the 
head of the Exercises ; and I have thus received 
one, or two, drawings with the lead-pencil or pen, 
very cleverly executed." 

If there is any authority which will justify the 
use of M thus," as employed above, I know no- 
thing of it. And I am at a loss also for authority, 
high, or low, for using copy, and picture in the 
singular ! 

" Some of the pupils at the High School have 
occasionally made a copy of the picture at the 
head of the exercises." 

Was there a plurality of boys engaged in making 
the same copy? Nothing like it. 

" The picture at the head of the Exercises." 
The use of the, before picture, makes Mr. Frost 
say that the same picture is placed at the head 
of all the Exercises ! By the use of the, Mr. Frost 
affirms that there is but one picture! I will illus- 
trate this : 

Call the servant of Mr. Jones. 
This language implies that Mr. Jones has but 
one servant. 

Would not the following suit the nature of the 
subject on which the professor is speaking, much 
better ? 

A few of the pupils at the High School, have 
occasionally made copies of some of the pictures 
at the head of the Exercises. 

" Picture at the head of the Exercises." 
Not only can no picture be found at the head 
of an exercise in the book ; but no exercises can 
be found in it ! I would submit the following 
substitute to the consideration of the professor : 

A few pupils of the High School, have occa- 
sionally copied some of the pictures which repre- 
sent the subjects for beginners in English com- 
position. 

While Mr. Frost is deciding upon the propriety 
of adopting this sentence as a substitute for the 
first part of his, I will call the attention of the 
reader to the last part. 

" Some of the pupils at the High School, have 
occasionally made a copy of the picture at the head 
of the exercises ; and on one or two occasions I 
have thus received drawings with the lead-pencil 
or pen^very cleverly executed." 

Here, in attempting to say that the pencil, or 
pen, was the instrument by which the pupils made 
the drawings, he makes himself affirm by a gross 
blunder in grammar, that the pencil, or pen, was 
the instrument by which he received the drawings 
from them | ! I have thus received drawings 



178 



APPEAL. 



with the lead-pencil or pen, very cleverly exe- 
cuted ! ! ! ! 

What this doctor thinks he has said, is this — 

I have thus received drawings which have been 
very cleverly executed with a lead-pencil, or pen. 

Another sense in which this sentence may be 
taken, is that Mr. Frost received the lead-pencil, 
or pen, as well as the drawings. This construction 
presents the pencil, or pen, as "very cleverly 
executed .'" 

Is this the result of the old system of English 
Grammar upon the head of Professor John Frost ! ? 

One of the thirty obvious errors which disfigure 
the first sentence of this Preface, is similar to this. 
There, in attempting to say that his publishers 
called upon him fifteen days after the publication 
of the first edition, to ask him to prepare a second, 
lie makes himself affirm, by adhering to Murray, 
of course, that they wished him to prepare a second 
edition in fifteen days from the time of the first 
publication ! ! And here, by following the same 
system, he wrests the instruments with which the 
pupils executed the drawings, from their hands, 
and makes them the means by which he received 
the drawings ! ! 

I shall now consign this sentence to the reader. 
This consignation, however, will not deprive me 
of curiosities, For, as I turn over the pages of 
this rare work, I find Rhetorical phenomena of 
which I had not the slightest conception. Although 
the whole book abounds with them, I think that 
which should become the successor in the order 
of discussion, to the one that I have just made 
over to the reader, is the following, which I find 
under page 104. 

" STRENGTH." 

" The strength of a sentence consists in such a dis- 
position of its several words and clauses as shall 
tend most powerfully to impress the mind of the 
reader with the meaning which the author intends to 
convey." 

A grammarian would say that the strength of 
a sentence is derived from such a disposition of its 
several words. But a Doctor of Laws begs leave 
to be unique : he must say that the cider consists 
of the apples ! To say that the wine is derived 
from the grapes, would be altogether contrary to 
the old theory of grammar, and to the new system 
of metaphysics. To say that the wine is derived 
from the grape, would seem to this Doctor of Laws, 
to favor the doctrine of metempsychosis ! ! 

u The strength of a sentence consists in such a 
disposition of its several words and clauses as shall 
tend most powerfully to impress the mind of the 
reader with the meaning which the author intends 
to convey." 

That a Doctor of Laws should never hit right, 
is somewhat singular. One would presume that 
chance would now, and then, give him a well 
formed sentence, But she is as treacherous as his 
theory of Grammar is erroneous ! In this sentence, 



he attempts to qualify the word, impress, with the 
phrase, " most powerfully,' 1 '' But he has so placed 
this syllabane that it qualifies " tend ?" " As shall 
tend most powerfully'." Is there no difference 
between saying, 

" As shall tend most powerfully to impress the 
mind," and, as shall tend to impress the mind 
most powerfully ! ? 

" The strength of a sentence consists in such a 
disposition of its several words," &c. 

That is, if you wish to qualify a particular 
word, you should so place the qualifying phrase 
that it will qualify another ! ! 

The Doctor may reply, however, that he has 
succeeded in communicating his thoughts. True — 
I understood him. I am indebted, however not to 
the accuracy of his language for my right appre- 
hension of his meaning, but to the nature of his 
subject ! When a child says, " me wants an 
apple," he is clearly understood. But does it fol- 
low that, because he is understood, he is able to 
write Grammars, and Rhetorics ! ? 

I would recommend the Doctor to pay more 
attention to the difference between shall, and will. 
"Such a disposition as shall tend," might be much 
improved by substituting will for shall. Such a 
disposition as will tend. 

" The strength of a sentence consists in such a 
disposition of its several words and clauses as 
shall tend most powerfully to impress the mind of 
the reader with the meaning which the author 
intends to convey." — (37 words.) 

The strength of a sentence is that power which 
it exerts in making a deep impression of the wri- 
ter's ideas, upon the reader's mind. (24 words.) 
Difference, 13 words ! 

The strength of a sentence is derived from pla- 
cing every sub as near its own super as the idea to 
be expressed, will allow, and on that, side of it, 
which perspicuity and euphony demand. 

The following is the second sentence in the 
paragraph — 

" To attain this quality, it is necessary to pay 
attention to the following rules." 

"Rule 1. A sentence ought to be divested of 
all redundant words and clauses." 

This is a rule indeed • This declaration, that a 
sentence is under moral obligation to be stripped 
" of all redundant words and clauses" is called a 
rule ! And to acquire a knowledge of that strength 
which "consists in such a disposition" of the 
words and clauses of a sentence " as shall tend 
most powerfully," the student must pay attention 
to this rule ! 

" Rule I. A sentence ought to be divested of 
all redundant words and clauses !" 

How is this possible ? Can those redundant 
words which do not belong to a sentence, be taken 
away from it ? For instance — Can the redun- 
dant words in the sentences of Mr. Bache be taken 
from the pleonastic sentences of Mr. Frost ? Let 
this idea be illustrated : 



APPEAL. 



179 



" Besides this class whose duties in and out of 
school have been stated, there is another class of 
Lovs." — Report on Education in Europe, by 
Alex. Dallas Bache, L. L. D. 

The word another, is redundant. And the 
sentence which it mars, can be divested of it. 
Put can the following sentence be divested of this 
redundant word ? 

" The circumstance of my being called upon by 
the publishers to prepare a second edition of these 
Exercises in fifteen days after the publication of 
the first, and the notification at the close of a 
month, that the first three thousand copies were 
sold, and a considerable part of the second edition 
ordered, afford a presumption that the work has 
met with the approbation of the public in its origi- 
nal shape." 

I have proved already, that this sentence may 
be divested of thirty-eight redundant words. But 
I should not like to undertake to show that the 
redundant word, another, of which the sentence by 
Mr. Bache, may be divested, could be taken from 
this! 

" Rule. I. A sentence ought to be divested of 
all redundant words, and clauses." 

From this use of the word, divest, one is com- 
pelled to believe even against the force of station, 
and titles, that Mr. Frost is not acquainted with 
the meaning of words ! That he has used . this 
word in the sense of contain, comprise, or have, is 
obvious from the omission of its after all. The 
The substitution of contain, comprise, or have, 
would render the rule under consideration, a 
reasonable proposition. 

Rule. I. A sentence must contain neither re- 
dundant words, nor clauses. 

That is, all words, which, if incorporated, would 
be redundant, must be omitted. 

But how is it possible to strip a sentence of those 
redundant words, and clauses, which are not in- 
corporated with it ? 

Had not Mr. Frost been ignorant of the import 
of the word, divest, he would have used its after 
all— 

Rule I. A sentence ought to be divested of all 
its redundant words, and clauses. 

In defining the word, divest, Webster says, 

1. To divest is to deprive ; as, to strip of clothes, 
of arms, or equipage. 

But does he say to strip one of all clothes, of all 
arms, of all equipage ? How can he, on whom 
all clothes in existence, are not found, be divested 
of all clothes ? 

Had Mr. Webster used the word, one, in his 
first attempt to illustrate his definition of" divest,'' 
he would have employed the word, his, in the 
same way in which he has used this word in his 
second attempt; and, in the same way in which 
Mr. Frost would have used the word, its after all, 
had he not taken divest to be synonymous with 
comprise ! 



I will repeat Mr. Webster's first attempt to 
illustrate the meaning of divest — in the repetition, 
I will use " one." 

1. To divest is to strip; as, to divest one of his 
clothes, of his arms, or his equipage. 

2. To divest is to deprive ; as, to divest one of 
his privileges, or rights, to divest one of his titles, 
or property. 

3. To deprive, or strip of any thing which 
covers, surrounds, or attends ; as, to divest one of 
his glory to divest a subject of deceptive appear- 
ances or false ornaments. Webster. 

Had Mr. Webster used all, he would have em- 
- ployed its ; as, to divest a subject of all its deceptive 
appearances. 

The Doctor's presumption that divest is synony- 

: mous with comprise, is the only rational ground 

! upon which this shameful obliquity can be placed. 

Here is a Doctor of Laws, who, in attempting 

to give a rule by which the parts of a garment 

may be properly put together, simply affirms that 

J every useless coat which a person has upon his 

i back, should be stripped off! Is there no differ- 

j errce between a rule for the construction of a tree, 

; and a mere declaration that a tree already formed, 

should be divested of its redundant branches ! ? 

Under page 100, I find the following : — 

" clearness and precision.'' 

"Every degree of ambiguity arising from a 
want of clearness and precision should be avoided 
with the greatest care." 

Was a sentence a living creature, and errors 
1 in grammar, diseases, what an unhappy being this 
■ paragraph must be '. But, fortunate for its author, 
sentences are dead. Was it not so, the ghost of 
this period would plead for relief in such sad, and 
stridulous accents as would " repent its author that 
he ever made it I" 

"Every degress of ambiguity arising from a 
i want of clearness should be avoided." 

That is, that darkness which arises from a 
' destitution of light, should be avoided! 

" Every degree of ambiguity arising from a 
want of clearness and precision, should be avoided 
with the greatest care." 

Is it not important to avoid that ambiguity 
which does not spring from a want of clearness, 
and precision ? The language of Mr. Frost im- 
plies that there is a species of ambiguity, which 
does not arise from either of the sources, men- 
tioned in the sentence under consideration '. ! 

"Should be avoided with the greatest care." 

This Doctor of Laws presumes that to avoid is 
synonymous with to guard against ! To avoid is 
an absolute act — "to avoid" signifies the accom- 
plishment of the object in view. " To guard 
against" signifies an exertion to accomplish, 
which may. and may not, be successful. The 
following injunction may be very wise — 



180 



APPEAL. 



John, guard against being taken with the 
greatest expense. 

But the following- can never be wise — 

John, avoid being taken with the greatest ex. 
pense. 

Does not he that avoids errors without any 
care, write as properly as he who avoids them 
with care I ? 

The professor of Belles-Lettres means to say 
this— 

Be careful to avoid every degree of ambiguity, 
which arises from a want of clearness and pre- 
cision. 

But is there no difference between the two com- 
mands — 

1. Avoid the errors with the greatest care. 

2. Be careful to avoid these errors. 

Is there no difference between saying, 

John, eat with the greatest care — and, John, he 
careful to eat ! ! ? 

The old theory, then, has taught Mr. Frost to 
express the injunction that a person must surely 
eat, as follows, 

John, eat with the greatest care ! ! 

I wish to introduce a theory which will teach 
him to express this injunction as follows, 

John, be careful to eat. 

"clearness and precision." 

"Every degree of ambiguity arising from a 
want of clearness and precision should be avoided 
ivith the greatest care." 

From this head one would presume, that this 
Doctor of Laws would predicate something of 
clearness and precision. Instead of this, however, 
we find him dividing ambiguity into different de- 
grees, and informing the pupil that he should avoid 
every degree which arises from a want of clear- 
ness, with all his might! 

CLEARNESS. 

The clearness of a sentence, is the distinctness 
with which the writer's ideas are expressed. 

The clearness of a sentence, is derived from 
appropriate words, properly placed ; as, 

Be careful to avoid every degree of ambiguity 
which may arise, either from using improper 
words, or from giving proper ones, a wrong posi- 
tion. Not, 

Avoid with the greatest care, &c. 

I have taken the following from page 102. 



" There must always be some leading principle 
to form a chain of connection between the compo- 
nent parts of every composition, and there must 
be the same connecting principle among the 
parts.'' 

It appears to me that there is a striking want 
of analogy between the head, and the sentence 



under it. Should not the head, and the proposi- 
tion, under it, be homogeneous ? Does the word, 
unity, convey any allusion to the idea of a chain 
of connection in the component parts of a compo- 
sition ? The word, unity, as used above, is calcu- 
lated to lead the reader to look for a distinct 
definition of the unity of a sentence, in the first 
proposition. But, instead of finding any attempt 
at a definition of this attribute, he finds the follow- 
ing sentence which speaks of nothing that belongs 
to the subject of the unity of a sentence : 

" There must always be some leading principle 
to form a chain of connection between the compo- 
nent parts of every composition, and there must 
be the same connecting principle among the 
parts /" 

" UNITY." 

The unity of a sentence, is a oneness of theme. 

The unity of a sentence, is derived from such a 
construction as renders the same thing the theme 
wherever it is mentioned in the sentence ; as, 

"Having come to anchor, /was put on shore 
where I was welcomed by all my friends ; and 
received with the greatest kindness." 

I was put ; / was welcomed ; and / was re- 
ceived. 

In the following the same ideas are expressed, 
but without that unity of theme, which exists in 
the preceding sentence : 

Having come to anchor, they put me on shore 
where / was welcomed by all my friends who re- 
ceived me with the greatest kindness : 

In this sentence, there are three distinct themes, 
namely, they, I, and who. In this, there is not 
unity, but disunity of theme. The same things, 
however, are spoken of in both sentences. — When 
they are spoken of in the first, they are mentioned 
as having a particular relation to one another — 
and, when they are spoken of in the second, they 
are mentioned as having the same relation. 

What then, has the connection of things to do 
with the unity of the sentence in which they are 
mentioned ! ? Above are two sentences, both 
founded upon things which are the same in iden- 
tity, and the same in connection. Yet in one there 
is unity, while in the other there is disunity ! 
What, then, I repeat, has the connection of things 
to do with the unity of a sentence ! ? Either 
unity, or disunity may belong to that sentence 
which is founded upon two brothers I Does the 
relation, then, between the things exert any 
influence over the sentence in giving it unity, or 
disunity ! ? 

There must always be a leading principle to 
form a chain of connection between the component 
parts of every composition, and there must be the 
same connecting principle among the parts !" 

Was professor Frost a. farmer, a chain might be 
useful to him. But as he is a teacher of Rhetoric, 



APPEAL, 



181 



how can he employ a chain to any advantage? I 
am somewhat surprised to find the doctor lugging 
a whole chain into his service, when one link 
would answer his purpose so much better ! Is not 
a link more strikingly adapted to the formation of 
a connection between any two parts than the whole 
chain !? 

" Link of connection." — Webster. 

" There must always be some leading principle 
to form a chain.'''' 

Is the fiict that a leading principle is necessary 
to the formation of a chain, so remarkable that it 
need be stated in this formal manner ? There is 
a leading principle in the formation of a pen, and 
of every other thing. 

But, says the professor, this is a chain of con- 
ncction." 

The whole idea of connection, is expressed in 
the word, chain. The word, connection, then is a 
pleonasm. Mr. Frost does not mean a chain of 
connection. He means a chain of ideas, a series 
of connected thoughts, or things. 

1. " Chain, a series of things linked together ; 
as a chain of causes, of ideas, or of events." 

2. " Chain, a range or line of things, connected ; 
as a chain of mountains, a chain of being." — Web- 
ster. 

What an adroit Rhetorician must he be, who 
employs the literal, with the figurative, means, in 
expressing the same idea ! ? Mr. Frost attempts 
to express the idea of connection — for this purpose, 
he uses the word chain in its figurative sense. 
But lest there should be found a degree, or two, 
of that ambiguity which arises from a want of 
clearness, he subjoins the word, connection, 
itself! 

A chain of connection ! 

If the word, chain, as here used, does not mean 
connection, what does it mean ? 

One moment's attention to the literal import of 
the word, chain, may shed a little light upon this 
subject. 

1. " Chain, a series of links, or rings, connect- 
ed, or fitted into one another." — Webster. 

"There must always be some leading principle 
to form a chain of connection between the compo- 
nent parts of every composition." 

That is, there must always be some leading 
principle to^ the component parts of every com- 
position " into one another." 

The word, chain, may also be used in the 
eense of the word, bond. But, surely there is no 
analogy between a bond which holds two, or more, 
things together, and the unity of a sentence ! 

I do not believe that any one but a doctor of laws, 
can either form, or understand, sentences like that 
under consideration. True — one may form opin- 
ions respecting the meaning of the first part of the 
sentence — but he can not decide which of his 
various conjectures, is right. But it would be pre- 



sumption in any one but a Professor of Belles- 
Lettres, or a Doctor of Laws, to attempt to com- 
prebend even the first part when it is taken in 
connection with the second. 

The first part — " There must always be some 
leading principle to form a chain cf connection 
between the component parts of every composition." 

If the reader can see that this language has 
any thing to do with the unity of a sentence, he 
deserves to be made an l. l. d. ! 

2. The second part — "and there must be the 
same connecting principle among the parts." 

3. Both parts — " There must always be some 
leading principle to form a chain of connection 
between the component parts of evtry composition, 
and there must be the same connecting principle 
among the parts." 

"Between the component parts," "and among 
the parts" are parts which must baffle a man of 
the brightest parts ! 

In writing this sentence, I do not think that 
Mr. Frost has avoided with the greatest care, every 
degree of ambiguity which arises from a want of 
clearness and precision!! At any rate, it does 
not seem to me that such a disposition is made of 
its several words and clauses, as shall tend most 
powerfully, to impress the mind of the reader with 
the meaning which the author intends to con- 
vey ! ! ! ! I feel quite anxious to remove the de- 
grees of ambiguity, which I presume must arise 
from a want of clearness ; for I think that it is 
very likely that the sentence contains some latent 
principles which might be invaluable to begin- 
ners in composition! I am the more inclined to 
this belief from the mention which is made of com- 
position in the sentence itself! ! 

The following is from page 103. 

" My horse was saddled, and I took a short ride, 
may be changed to — My horse having been sad- 
dled I took a short ride." 

If I have said, or done, any thing in these re- 
flections, which has exerted an influence upon the 
mind of the reader, unfavourable to the ability of 
Mr. Frost, I am sorry for it. My object in making 
these reflections, is, not to demonstrate that Doctor 
Frost is incapable of learning the old theory of 
English Grammar, but to establish the position 
that this theory is useless when learned. 

And justice to the Doctor, requires that I should 
here say that I do not think his writings would be 
a fair scale upon which to graduate his reasoning 
powers ! In his writings, these faculties appear 
to be unemployed ! That this is the case is obvious 
from the above quotation which is a fair specimen 
of his numerous productions. 

" My horse was saddled, and I took a short ride, 
may be changed to — My horse having been sad- 
dled I took a short ride." (Page 103.) 

This change, says this doctor of laws, gives the 
sentence a greater unity > 



182 



APPEAL. 



1. "My horse was saddled, and I took a short 
ride." 

2. My horse having been saddled, I took a short 
ride. 

Here, the reader perceives that Mr. Frost is so 
entirely indifferent as to the display of mind, that 
he does not hesitate to consider these two sentences 
synonymous ! In the first, the speaker affirms that 
his horse was saddled, and that he took a short 
ride. But he does not say why he took a short 
ride. In the second, however, the speaker not 
only affirms that his horse was saddled, and that 
he took a short ride, but he gives the reason why 
he took this ride ! 

The reader will see at once that great injustice 
would be done to Professor Frost in measuring 
his intellect by his writings ! ! The place in which 
he figures to advantage is in the business of sell- 
ing his books by securing places of profit, and 
titles of honor ! ! 

" My horse was saddled, and I took a short 
ride" is synonymous with " My horse having been 
saddled I took a short ride ! ! ! " 

It is somewhat surprising, however, that this 
doctor of laws breeds errors in grammar with 
such a remarkable fecundity ! Wherever he 
breathes, he spawns them: and to divest his verbal 
concretions of them, would be to eject them from 
their vernacular matrix ! 

" My horse wo.s saddled, and I took a short 
ride." 

In attempting to augment the unity of this 
sentence, he not only forms one different in sense, 
but makes it a kennel for a pack of those cater- 
wauling tribes which I have chased from so 
many of his periods, and which are so rampant 
within the walls of one of our public schools ! He 
uses having been saddled for being saddled ! ! " 

" My horse having been then saddled, I took a 
short ride !" 

My horse being then saddled, I took a short 
ride. 

I shall say nothing more, at this time upon the 
compilations of Doctor Frost ! If what I have 
said, should subserve the cause of education, I 
shall never regret the pains which I have taken 
to expose the errors that pervade,and deform them. 
And while my primary wish is that these reflec- 
tions may promote the interest of letters, my 
secondary one is that they may serve as a kind of 
monument to his profound erudition ! A man 
who has earned so many rarely bestowed distinc- 
tions, should not be allowed to drop into the grave 
with nothing but these titular mementos to his 
rare worth ! Too many distinguished scholars 
decay, and crumble from the memory of future 
ages for want of suitable means to perpetuate 
their greatness ! It is the province of "L. L. D." 
to help a man through life — but, it is the function 
of his works to embalm his memory after 
death. 



I shall now spend a short time with Professor 
Bache. 

I regret that I have not the learning which is 
necessary to qualify me to understand, and the 
taste, and particular views, requisite to enable me, 
to appreciate the writings of this great scholar. I 
have read, however, a few of his Reports — and in 
all that I have perused, the author seems to betray 
that remarkable proneness to commit errors in 
grammar which so eminently distinguishes Pro. 
fessor Frost. 

As I do not wish to engage in any difficult task, 
I shall not attempt to show that Mr. Bache is a 
profound reasoner. I shall content myself with 
observing that there are numerous large bumps in 
many of his periods — but they seem not to spring 
from the intellectual region of his cranium ! 

That he has Language large, is obvious from 
the size of the work which he has ushered into 
the world under the following inscription — 

" Report on education in Europe, to the Trus- 
tees of the Girard College for orphans. By 
Alexander Dallas Bache, L. L. D., President 
of the College:' 

From the slight incongruity between this title, 
and the subjects on which the volume treats, I am 
inclined to think that the Doctor's order is not 
large ! 

The deficiency in his order, however, is nearly, 
if not entirely made up from the magnitude of his 
ideality ! No one will doubt this who considers 
that the college over which he represents himself 
as presiding, had never existed except in imagina- 
tion .' .' The reader can well judge of the powers 
of an organ that can fancy into being, collegiate 
buildings, procreate three hundred orphan child- 
ren, and install its subject president of the 
whole ! ! Whatever deficiency there may be in the 
Doctor's order, must be amply supplied in the 
rare powers which nature has bestowed upon his 
ideality ! 

That there is a slight incongruity between the 
title, and the subject of the volume, may be seen 
not only from perusing the book, but from a short 
examination of the instructions which were given 
to the Doctor before he had embarked for Europe. 
In 1837 Mr. Bache was sent to particular parts in 
Europe to learn something of the statistics of the 
European Institutions resembling the contemplated 
Girard College in America. This is obvious 
from the following extract, taken from the instruc- 
tions which had been given him by the trustees of 
this contemplated College before he embarked for 
these places. 

"Accordingly, all institutions in each of those 
countries, resembling the Girard College, or any 
others which promise to afford useful information 
in organizing it, you will see and examine:'' 

But is the title which Mr. Bache has given to 
his book, indicative of any such purpose as that 
for which he was sent to examine these schools ? 



APPEAL 



183 



** Report on education in EuRorE ! !" 
Mr. Bache was sent to these places to learn the 
methods of teaching, governing, lodging, clothing, 
and feeding, children, in such schools as resemble 
this imaginary institution, the Girard College ! 
Had he been sent to Europe to convoke all the 
learned men of that country, and examine them 
upon the subject of their education, their knowledge 
of the arts, and sciences, the marvel would be 
whence the rjgbt to make this convocation ! The 
question would arise instanter — has this imaginary 
College granted any chartered privileges to the liter- 
ati of Europe, w hich they enjoy by the tenure of the 
degree of their scientific attainments? If not, why is 
the President of this nonentity clothed with that au- 
thority which is indicated bvthctitle pageofhisbook? 
Was the author of this gross misnomer, sent to 
Europe to examine, even the state of education in 
that country ? He was sent there to examine the 
pantaloons, the shoes, and stockings, which certain 
children wear, the meat which they eat, the rooms 
in which they sleep, the methods in which they are 
taught, and the means by which they are flogged .'.' 
The following extracts taken from the body of 
the work, clearly show the impropriety of the lan- 
guage, employed upon the title page. 

" In both the French, and Prussian institutions 
the highest officer, the provisor or director, ad- 
ministers the discipline, and the tone of it depends 
upon his character." p. 514. 

" The professors and teachers in the French 
colleges in Paris, live out of the institution, and 
have nothing to do with the discipline out of 
recitation hours." 

How does the following extract comport with 
the title, Report on Education in Europe ? 

" Discipline. The discipline of the school is 
thoroughly military." 



a 

D 

K 


Once a week 
polatoe soup, 
19.72 oz. po- 
tatoes, and 5 
oz. of bread, 
each. 

Once a week 
pea soup, (3. 
66 oz. peas.) 
and 5 oz. of 
bread. 


h 


V 


N N N 

s s ' c c o 
o c c» <a x> 


1j . 

Z ~ 
o 2 


N N N 
■ . N < M N ° ° ° 

£ S c b c <>> --a co 
i cc co ot 3* c» ;o 05 ri 


— ' ~ 

~ 'K a) 

%2 


Breakfast. 

Supper. 
L'ch at It. 

" at 4. 

Dinner. 
Dinner. 


a 
,g 

o 

-a 


Oatmeal. 
Bread. 

Beef. 

Totaioes. 

Barley. 


to 


fleriot's 

Hospital. 
(Edin- 
burgh.) 



" Report on education in Europe, to the trustees 
of the Girard College for orphans. By Alex, 
Dallas Bache, l. l. d., President of the Col- 
lege." 

The Substitute ; 

A Report of the statistics of those schools in 
Europe, which resemble the contemplated Girard 
College in America. By Alex. Dallas Bache. 

" The master is expected to be so fully imbued 
with his subject, and expert in his art as to be able 
to impart knowledge principally orally to his 
pupils, and in such a way as to adapt it to each 
individual." 

We expect what is yet to come — not what is 
already here ! The master is presumed to be so 
fully imbued with his subject. 

A subject is that of which one speaks. If, then, 
a person can be imbued with his subject, he may 
be imbued with a brick or with a brick house ! 

The master is presumed to be so fully acquainted 
with his subject, 

" The master is expected to be so fully imbued 
with his subject, and so expert in his art as to be 
able to impart knowledge to his pupils principally, 
orally, and in such a way as to adapt it to each 
individual." 

The words, as, to, be, should be exchanged for 
that he is. And so expert in this art, " that he is" 
able to impart knowledge to his pupils principally 
orally. 

As "principally orally" are somewhat harsh, I 
would exchange principally for the most part, 
which I would place after that : 

And so expert in his art that, for the most part, 
he is able to impart knowledge to his pupils orally, 
and in such a way as to adapt it to each indi- 
vidual. 

" And" after orally, should be rejected : 

And so expert in his art that for the most part, 
he is able to impart knowledge to his pupils orally 
in such a way as to adapt it to each individual. 

The word, orally, signifies the way in which he 
imparts knowledge. But by the use of and, Mr. 
Bache denies that orally conveys any allusion to 
the way in which the teacher imparts knowledge [ 

He is able to impart knowledge to his pupils 
orally, and in such a way as to adapt it to each 
individual ! 

" As," in the above instance, is a relative pro- 
noun, having the noun, way, for its antecedent. 
But in what case is this relative ? There is nothing 
to govern it in the objective ; nor is there any verb 
to which it can be in the nominative ! ! True, it 
precedes a verb in the infinitive mode — but, as a 
verb in this mode, can have no nominative, 
Doctor Bache will be compelled to procure the aid 
of Doctor Frost to furnish a suitable case for this 
relative • 

" As to adapt it to each individual." 

This is hardly good sense, — much less is it good 
English ! To say that knowledge is adapted to 



184 



APPEAL. 



an individual, betrays a great want of knowledge ! 
Knowledge, if by the word knowledge, is meant 
instruction, principle, may be adapted to the ca- 
pacity of an individual — but I believe it cannot be 
said with any degree of propriety, that knowledge 
is adapted to him, to her, 8fC 

1. " The master is expected to be so fully im- 
bued with his subject, and so expert in his art as 
to be able to impart knowledge to his pupils prin- 
cipally orally, and in such a way as to adapt it to 
each individual ! " (42 words.) 

The Substitute. 
It is presumed that the master is able to instruct 
his pupils principally without the use of books. 
(18 words.) 24 redundant words ! I 

" Report to the committee of controllers of the 
public schools, on the High School for Girls." 

"Philadelphia, October 5, 1840. 
Gentlemen : 

In compliance with the request of the com* 
mittee, I submit to them a plan for a High School 
for Girls, and of a Seminary for Female Teachers. 
to be attached to the present Model School, and 
intended to carry out more fully than is now done, 
the directions of the Act of the Assembly in refer- 
ence to that School." 

" Gentlemen : 

In compliance with the request of the com- 
mittee, I submit to them ."' 

Corrected. 
Gentlemen of the committee ; 

In compliance with your request, I sub- 
mit to you a plan, &c. 

" A plan for a High School for Girls, and of a 
Seminary for Female Teachers." 

I submit to you " a plan of a seminary." 

" A plan of a building" is very different from a 
plan for a building. "A plan of a house" is a 
plan of a building already erected — but " a plan 
for a house" is a plan of one to be erected ! 

" A plan for a High School for Girls, and of a 
Seminary for Female Teachers ! 

Besides the improper use of of for for, there is 
a " degree," or two of ambiguity in this language. 
"Apian for a High School for Girls, and of a 
Seminary for Female Teachers" does not decide 
whether there is one plan only, or whether there 
are two. Mr. Bache says that he has presented a 
plan for two schools. Has he presented two plans 
— or are both schools to be formed upon the one 
plan ? I have satisfied myself from the context 
of this Report that Mr. Bache has presented two 
plans ! The language of this doctor of laws, then, 
may be corrected by substituting for for of, and by 
adding one after and : 

"A plan for a High School for Girls, and one for 
a Seminary for Female Teachers." 

I would recommend Mr. Bache to " avoid every 



degree of ambiguity arising from a want ol 
clearness with the greatest care ! ! " 

" To be attached to the present Model School, 
and intended to carry out more fully than is now 
done." 

" More fully." Can one thing be fuller than 
another ! ? If one measure is fully carried out, 
can another be carried beyond it ! ? 

" To be attached to the present Model School." 

What is it which is to be attached ? From the 
construction of the sentence, the plan is to be 
attached to the Model School. 

I present you with a picture of Henry Clay, 
and John Q. Adams, to be hung up in the Phila- 
delphia Museum. 

What is to be hung up ? Are these men, or 
their pictures to be hung up in the Philadelphia 
Museum ! ? According to Mr. Bache the men 
themselves are to be hung up ! ! I 

Reader, examine his sentence ; 
Gentlemen : 

In compliance with the request of the com- 
mittee I submit to them a plan for a High School 
for Girls, and of a Seminary for Female Teachers, 
to be attached to the present Model School. 

A plan of a school to be attached to. 

A picture of Henry Clay to be hung up. 

If the school is to be attached, Henry Clay is to 
be hung up. If the picture is to be hung up, the 
plan is to be attached ! ! ! 

" Intended to carry out more fully than is now 
done the directions of the Act of the Assembly in 
reference to that school." 

What is intended to carry out more fully ? 
Why the plan which is to be attached to the school ! 

I present to you the picture of Henry Clay, to be 
hung up in the Philadelphia museum, intended 
to gratify those who have never seen the man 
himself! 

But what is this plan which is to be attached to 
the present Model School ? Let the following 
sentence reply — 

Hear, hear — " In order to the execution and 
development of this plan I would propose, at least 
for the present, to act as inspector of these 
schools ! ! ! ! " 

This was a plan indeed ! It was a trick to 
attach himself to the present Model School that he 
might attach another salary to the three thousand 
Dollars which he had managed to get for inspect- 
ing the High School ! 

" I would propose, at least at present, to act as 
inspector of these schools ! ! ! " 

Why, why, " in order to their execution and 
development !" 

What! a man that can neither speak, nor write 
the English Language with any degree of pro- 
priety, be the inspector of High Schools in the 
county, ah, in the very city of Philadelphia ! ? ! ! 

Look at the sentence which I have just 
quoted — 



APPEAL. 



185 



u I would propose, at least for the present, to 
act as inspector of these schools ! " 

Here, in attempting to say that he would pro- 
pose to act for the present, as inspector of these 
schools, he affirms that he would propose for the 
present ! ! 

I would propose, at least for the present, that the 
money should he paid in 1849. 

Docs this mean that I would propose that the 
money should be paid at least in 1849 ? 

" Gentlemen : 

In compliance with the request of the com- 
mittec, I submit to them a plan for a High School 
for Girls, and of a Seminary for Female Teachers, 
to be attached to the present Model School, and 
intended to carry out more fully than is now done, 
the directions of the Act of the Assembly in refer- 
ence to that school :" 

The Substitute: 

Gentlemen of the committee, 

In compliance with your request, I submit 
to you a plan for a High School for Girls, and one 
for a Seminary for Female Teachers. 

The portion of the sentence, which commences 
with "to be attached," is premature: it has no 
connection with that part for which I have given 
a substitute. This long trail, therefore, in which 
Mr. Bache, in attempting to say that these con- 
torn plated institutions should be attached to the 
Model School, declares that his plan for them, 
should be incorporated with that school, forms no 
natural part of the paragraph. This part of his 
plan naturally belongs to the subject of the build- 
ings with which he has in truth treated it ! 

Under page 7, he says, 

" The superintendence of the courses should be 
vested in a principal, to serve as the immediate 
organ of the committee in the school, and to report, 
minutely, in relation to the progress of the estab- 
lishment, at least, once during a year." 

" The superintendence should be vested," is 
replete with eccentricity ! One could say with as 
much propriety, I am vested with the instruction 
of the school ! ! " To serve as the immediate 
organ of the committee in the school," is some- 
what unique ! (of.) 

The Dutchman, in attempting to say that he 
had had three wives within ten years, declared by 
the use of during for within, that he was guilty of 
bigamy. He was accordingly tried for this offence. 
He was acquitted, however, upon the ground that 
he did not mean what he said ! It was fortunate 
for him that Mr. Bache did not figure at the time 
of this notable trial. Had the authority of a 
doctor of laws been cited to show that during 
means within, the innocent Dutchman must have 
paid the penalty of incarceration for his igno- 
rance ! 

Under the head of admission I find the follow- 
ing— 



"To be admitted the candidates should be 
twelve years of age; hare passed at least six 
months in regular attendance upon one of the pub- 
lic schools, and show satisfactory attainments in 
reading, writing, arithmetic, (to the rule of three 
inclusive,) grammar, and geography." 

Would not a girl thus fur advanced, know the 
difference between saying — 

" I have had three wives during ten years," 
and " I have had three wives within ten years ! ? 
If so, would she not be likely to know more gram- 
mar than the gentleman in whom the superintend. 
ence was to be vested .' ? 

Would she not be likely to know better than to 
say, "To be admitted the candidates must be 
twelve years of age ! ?." I think she would say — 
To be a candidate the girl must be twelve years 
of age ! 

She might also avoid the error of connecting 
" should be," and " have passed ! ! " 

And I somewhat think that it would be just to 
reprimand her, if she committed the error of 
placing " at least" after passed instead of after 
months ! 1 

I am inclined to believe that she would see the 
obvious difference between saying, 

Have passed at least six months, and have 
passed six months at least ! Have passed at least 
is one thing — Six months- at least is another. 

I should be much surprised if she could not see 
something wrong in the syllabane, " in regular 
attendance upon one of the public schools ! " To 
attend upon, is to serve in the capacity of a menial ! 
I think, therefore, that a girl with the attainments 
which Mr. Bache has specified as a qualification 
for admission into this High School, would say in 
regular attendance at one of the public schools. 

Nor can I believe that she would be very likely 
to commit the error of using "one of" for a. She 
would see at once that the use of" one of" would 
require the pupil to attend six months at the same 
public school! This would exclude a candidate 
who had spent three months at one, and three at 
another public school ! Would she not be very 
likely to prevent this error by saying, in regular 
attendance at a public school ? 

" The details of the course of studies, the text 
books to be used, and the distribution of time had 
better be left for arrangement subsequent to the 
organization of the school, between the professors, 
the inspector, and the committee." 

"Had be left ! '." "Between the professors, the 
inspector, and the committee ! !" 

How does the use of be, and between, comport 
with the following ? — 

" In order to the execution and development of 
this plan / would propose, at least for the present, 
to act as inspector of these schools ! ! !" 

" In order to the execution and development of 
this plan," is anomalous indeed I 

" In order to the execution !" 



186 



APPEAL. 



" In order to the execution and development .'" 
What is the difference between the execution, 
and the development, of this plan ! ? 

" Lessons on common objects of nature and 
art." 

This use of of for in, is highly complimentary 
to Mr. Bache. Objects of nature ! in nature. 

" The pupils of the High School should be ad- 
mitted on examination, from the other public 
schools." 

" The pupils of the High School should be ad- 
mitted from the other public schools ! .'" 

What does this language mean ! ? I do not ask 
what Mr. Bache intends to express — I know, from 
the nature of the subject, on which he writes, 
what he wishes to say. I ask what does this 
language mean ! ? 

" The pupils of the High School should be ad- 
mitted ?" 

Admitted where ? If they are pupils of the 
High School, are they not already admitted ! ? ! 

" The pupils of the High School for Girls should 
be admitted on examination, from the other public 
schools, the number to be admitted at each exam- 
ination, being previously determined by the com- 
mittee having charge of the school, and the candi- 
dates who pass the best examination, having the 
preference ! !" 

That is, the number should be previously deter- 
mined by the committee and by the candidates 
having the preference ! ! 

This is the exact sense of the language of this 
Doctor of Laivs ! ! Determined by the committee, 
and the candidates. Or — Determined by the com- 
mittee having charge of the school, and the can- 
didates having the preference ! ! ! 

" In order to the execution and development of 
this plan I would propose at least for the present, 
to act as inspector of these schools ! ! ! !" 
Allow me to repeat the above sentence — 
"TVte pupils of the High School for Girls should 
be admitted on examination, from the other public 
schools, the number to be admitted at each exami- 
nation being previously determined by the com- 
mittee having charge of the school, and the candi- 
dates who pass the best examination, having the 
preference .'" 

That is, the pupils of the High School for Girls, 
should be admitted on examination, from the other 
public schools, because the number to be admitted 
at each examination, is to be previously determined 
by the committee having charge of the school ! 1 

I gave him a receipt in full, the demand being 
paid. 

That is, I gave him a receipt in full because the 
demand had been paid. 

The substitute : 

The candidates for admission into this institu- 
tion, must come from other public schools, and 
must show on examination, a satisfactory know- 



ledge of reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, 
and English Grammar. 

The committee of the school, shall publish, three 
weeks before the examination of the candidates, 
how many may be admitted. And, should the 
number of applicants, exceed the numeral re- 
striction of the committee, all shall be examined ; 
and the complement selected from the whole, 
according to the attainments of each. But should 
the applicants at the general examination not 
equal the number fixed by the committee, the de- 
ficiency may be supplied as soon as subsequent 
applicants can be found from examination, to be 
worthy of admission. 

" Marks for recitation, and places in the class, 
provided they are employed in the right spirit, 
will be useful." 

That is, marks to be recited! Or doL Mr. 
Bache mean marks to induce the pupil to r\ite ! 
Perhaps he wishes to say — Marks of merit in 
recitation. 

"Provided they are employed in the right 
spirit." 

Does not Mr. Bache here express improperly 
what is properly expressed in the following — 

Provided they are justly given. (It is common 
for a teacher to say — I will give you three bad 
marks.) 

The substitute : 
Marks of merit in recitation, and standing in 
the class, provided they are given justly, will be 
useful. 

" Self emulation and a desire to obtain the esteem 
of teachers and companions, and to add to the 
reputation with which the pupil is associated, and 
of the school, are much more noble motives than 
mere rivalry for place ; but emulation in youth, 
when not unduly excited, is usually a generous 
feeling." 

u Self emulation, and a desire to obtain the 
esteem of teachers." 

Selfemulation is not a word!! Nor will this 
alphabetic concretion ever be a word ! There is 
nothing in existence of which it can be the name. 
Men form words for the expression of those things, 
facts, and circumstances, of which they have ideas. 
"Emulate, to strive to equal, or excel in qualities, 
or actions." 

"Emulation, the act of attempting to equal, or 
excel in qualities or actions, rivalry, desire of 
superiority attended with effort to attain to it." 
Webster. 

Do individuals attempt to equal themselves ! ? 
Where is the man that has ever attempted to%xcel 
himself!? Was selfemulation a word, it would 
signify the means which a man employs to make 
himself equal himself — the means which a man 
employs to make himself excel himself ! ! 

" And a desire to obtain the esteem of teachers." 

Was esteem an article of dress, or furniture, as a 

hat, or clock, one might speak of obtaining it. 



APPEAL. 



187 



Wc may merit, secure, or have, the esteem of 
others. 

"To add to the reputation icith which the pupil 
is associated." 

This man is associated with a good reputation/ 
Js it English — Is it sense ? 

" To add to the reputation with which the pupil 
is associated, and of the school/" 

What does and connect ? What are the ideas 
which Mr. Bache icishes to express ? 

In genera] the nature of the writer's subject, 
will serve as a commentary upon any abstruse 
portion of his language. But, in this case, the 
reader derives no such aid. If there is any sub- 
ject, it is enveloped in a cloud of words, which 
can neither be penetrated, nor dispersed. I have 
never found an instance where self emulation has 
been so necessary to enable me to understand 
a writer as in this case : I must here excel myself 
to comprehend Mr. Bache ! ! 

" To add to the reputation with which the pupil 
is associated, and of the school!" 

" In order to the development of this' 1 sentence 
" / would propose" that Mr. Bache should act as 
inspector of its plan 1 

" To add to the reputation with which the pupil 
is associated, and of the school. 

I can have nothing to do with the ideas which 
Mr. Bache wishes to express : I can not compre- 
hend him. To add to the reputation of the pupil, 
and of the school, is language which I can under- 
stand. I can understand also the following — To 
add to the reputation with which the pupil, and 
the school are associated. 

But I understand it to be nonsense ! 
And, although the syllabane, " to add to the re. 
putation of the pupil, and of the school," does ex- 
press sense, I can not decide whether it expresses 
a sense which has any thing to do with the ideas 
expressed in the preceeding part of the sentence, 
or not. 

" Selfemulation and a desire to obtain the esteem 
of teachers, and companions, and to add to the re- 
putation of the pupil, and of the school, are much 
more noble motives than mere rivalry for place." 

If this is the sense which Mr. Bache wishes to 
express, why has he substituted, " with which the 
pupil is associated," for, of the pupil / ? 

" I have come for the hat of John, is English. 
But I have come for the hat "with which John is 
associated," is neither sense, nor English ! 

" Much more noble motives," would be much im- 
proved by giving motives a pre-position. 
Motives, much more noble. 
" Selfemulation, and a desire to obtain the esteem 
of teachers, and companions, and to add to the re- 
putation with which the pupil is associated, and of 
the school, are much more noble motives than mere 
rivalry for place ! r ' 

Is rivalry a motive / ? " Selfemulation and a 
desire to obtain the esteem of teachers, are much 



more noble motives than mere rivalry for 
place ."' 

That is, John is a much better boy thanSa?-ah// 
" Than mere rivalry for place." 
I presume Mr. Bache means " than rivalry for 
mere place ! ! 

Selfemulation and a desire to obtain the esteem 
of teacher and companions, and to add to the repu- 
tation with which the pupil is associated, and of 
the school arc much more noble motives than mere 
rivalry for place ; but emulation in youth, when 
not unduly excited, is usually a generous feeling. 
" Whence, and what art thou, execrable shape !" 
This sentence is indeed the work of deformity — 
it is the offspring of the two tribes of pests, which 
all the old school grammarians, and rhetoricians, 
have laboured in vain to control ! Yes, in this one 
paragraph, these two tribes of scaly lizards, in de- 
spite of the persuasion, advice, rules, exceptions, 
notes, remarks, laws, and comments, of all the old 
school grammarians, from Aristotle to John Frost, 
sport with the erudition of Alexander Dallas Bache 
with as much impunity as they would with the 
learning of one who had neither been made a com- 
mittee to report on Education in Europe, nor act- 
ing principal of the Central High School for boys, 
— who had neither been made President of the 
Girard College for Orphans, nor doctor of laws// 

I should be glad to continue my reflections up- 
on the writings of this rare scholar. The task 
certainly exerts a salutary influence upon my 
mind — and I regret that I am compelled to leave 
it before it is finished. To me there is something 
bewitching in the works of those who have sat 
in judgment upon the education of nations, who 
have emitted their rays of genius through the nu- 
merous compartments of High Schools, and who 
have shed a glorious lustre over collegiate build- 
ings, which vies in brightness with that radiant 
blaze with which the morning star ushers in the 
light of day ! 



CHAPTER XXXVII. 

Whoever has reflected upon the present state 
of the English Grammar, has arrived at the con- 
clusion that great improvements may yet be made 
in this science. This conclusion may aid the pub- 
lic in accounting for the multiplicity of new 
Grammars. 

To ascertain the true principles of English 
grammar, and present them in a form adapted to 
the capacity of youth, has been long the object of 
many in the United States. 

In this undertaking, the people have felt con- 
siderable interest — and it seems high time that 
they should know whether this important object 
has been accomplished. And it seems to devolve 
upon me, incapable as I am, to give as far as I 
can collect the facts, the exact state of this literary 



188 



APPEAL. 



enterprise. In discharging this duty, I shall aim 
at being just to all, — and especially to the authors 
of the works of which I shall speak. 

Compassion to them, however, must not prevent 
me from being faithful to the public. While my 
love of science prompts me to declare the whole 
truth, my regard for those who have devoted their 
time, and attention to improve it, shall ensure 
them the mildest course which can be pursued. 

I have examined with care, nearly all the publi- 
cations which have been proposed as improve- 
ments on Mr. Murray's system ; and I am sorry 
to say, that his work, had it been written after 
these attempted simplifications, and with reference 
to them, would be considered an important im- 
provement upon all the recent systems which I 
have perused. In principle, they are not superior 
to Mr. Murray's system ; and in perspicuity of 
expression, purity of style, propriety of language, 
and precision of words they fall far below it. In 
exemplification of this truth, I shall select a few 
of the many improprieties that pervade the works 
which are presented as striking improvements 
upon Mr. Murray. 

GOOLD BROWN'S GRAMMAR. 

It is but a few years since this production has 
been presented to the world. To what extent the 
work has received an introduction into schools, is 
beyond my power to say. And as this is not a 
point which can even aid in deciding upon its 
superiority I may safely concede what common 
report declares. There are two things which must 
guide my decision upon all works of this kind ; 
namely, truth, and the manner of presenting truth. 
He who attempts to carry the mind from an incn. 
pable to a capable state, should understand well 
the powers of mental reception, and mental reten- 
tion. There is a particular part of every science 
that now flourishes upon the figurative hill, which 
is designed by juvenility itself for the promo- 
tion of mental growth. And he who knows 
what this part is, and the proper mode of pre- 
senting it to the intellectual babe, is a valuable 
nurse in the house of instruction. 

Mr. Goold Brown's book is founded upon princi- 
ples which I have demonstrated to be altogether 
insufficient to sustain the British system of English 
Grammar which has been presented by Mr. L. 
Murray. True in many instances, Mr. Goold 
Brown has varied the phraseology of Mr. Murray ; 
and in a few cases he has even substituted new 
language for that of his polar star in the sphere of 
grammar. Bui these are the base tricks of which 
they are guilty, w T ho have no conscience to feel, 
and no powers to invent ! One case is a suffi- 
cient illustration : 

"ENGLISH GRAMMAR." 

" English grammar is the art of speaking and 



writing the English language with propriety." — 
Murray. 

" English grammar is the art of speaking and 
writing the English language correctly / " — G. 
Brown. 

I presume that all the real improvements which 
Mr. G. Brown has here made, consists in conclu- 
ding his sentence with an adverb instead of a 
noun ! ! 

The author styles his book, which is now before 
me — 

"THE INSTITUTES OF ENGLISH 
GRAMMAR." 

From this Roman title, one unacquainted with 
Mr. Murray's works on this subject, might presume 
that Mr. G. Brown is an institutist / Not so, 
however — he has not written elementary rules, 
and doctrines — he has copied them from others ! 
But although with respect to the principles of hi3 
book, he is not an institutist, yet with respect to 
the preface of it, he is certainly an institutor,-r-ox 
he has written entirely without rules i 

" Language is the principal vehicle of thought,'''' 

Now, as in speaking of the purpose of a vehicle, 
for is generally employed. Mr. G. Brown has 
used of without rule, — or he has become the insti. 
tutor of a new rule! In speaking of the purpose 
of a building, one would hardly say — A house of 
corn ! I am inclined to think that all, except 
grammar compilers, would say — A house for 
corn ! 

Mr. G. Brown's sentence would be somewhat 
improved by enlarging it with, for the communi- 
cation, or expression — 

Language is the principal vehicle for the com- 
munication of thought. 

Was the author here speaking of language as a 
kind of vessel containing thought, of might be used 
with propriety. But that he does not mean to 
present language under the character of a bottle, 
is obvious from two facts. First, he makes lan- 
guage the principal, the chief. But as a container 
of ideas, the mind would rank higher than lan- 
guage ! Secondly, he makes language a vehicle — 
and as a vehicle is not a vessel, it will be quite 
difficult for him to say, that he means to present 
language as a sort of jug '. I 

The third sentence of the author's preface is as 
follows — 

" For whataver we may think in relation to its 
origin — whether we consider it a special gift from 
heaven, or an acquisition of industry — a natural 
endowment, or an artificial invention — certain it is, 
that in the present state of things, our knowledge 
of it depends- in a great measure, if not entirely, 
on the voluntary exercise of our faculties, and on 
the helps and opportunities afforded us" 

In this sentence, Mr. G. Brown speaks of an 
artificial invention ! I do not pretend to know 
what an artificial invention is, unless it is " a vc 



APPEAL. 



189 



hide of thought /" If the author is right in the 
use of artificial, then, indeed, there must be natu- 
ral arts, and artificial arts ! 

" Whether we consider it a special gift from 
heaven, or an acquisition of industry — a natural 
endowment, or an artificial invention?'' 

Here, too the author has adopted a new rule for 
one which is well known, and closely followed by 
writers in general. It is this — 

" When analogous ideas are in contiguous sen- 
tences or parts of a sentence, they should be ex- 
pressed in similar language :" Or, 

" When things themselves correspond to each 
other we naturally expect to find a similar corres- 
pondence in the words." 

1. " From heaven?'' 

2. Of industry, 

3. A natural endowment, 

4. An artificial invention. 

Had Mr. G. Brown followed the obvious princi- 
ple of constructing a sentence of this kind, he 
would have framed the last two monos like the first 
two. 

1. A special gift "from heaven," 

2. An acquisition of industry, 

3. An endowment of nature, 

4. An invention of art. 

Let me now attempt to correct this teacher'' s 
sentence : 

Whether we consider it a special gift from 
heaven, or an acquisition of industry — an endow- 
ment of nature, or an invention of art, certain it 
is that, &c. 

So much for the frame-work improprieties of the 
institutor's sentence. 

Let me now substitute production for invention, 
in order to correct an error which the author has 
committed in the choice of words. 

Whether we consider it a special gift from 
heaven, or an acquisition of industry — an endow- 
ment of nature, or a production of art, certain it is 
that, &c- 

But this sentence is not less remarkable for its 
pleonastic character than for its irregular con- 
struction. Of this even the author himself will 
be perfectly satisfied if he will attempt to show 
the utility of the italic words : 

"For, whatever we may think in relation to its ori- 
gin, — whether we consider it a special gift from 
heaven, or an acquisition of industry, — a natural 
endowment, or an artificial invention, certain it is 
that, &c." (35 words.) 

For whether we consider it a special gift from 
heaven, or an acquisition of industry — an endow- 
ment of nature, or an artificial invention, certain 
it is that. (35.) 
27 

8 redundant words 
The fourth sentence, under this curious page, 
reads thus — 



" One may indeed acquire, by mere imitation, 
such a knowledge of words, as to enjoy the ordi- 
nary advantages of speech." 

In this sentence the author is not only seen to 
be an institutor, but a bold innovator — " such a 
knowledge of words as to enjoy .'" 

Here the relative pronoun, as, is made the nomi- 
native to enjoy ! Yes, such is the frame-work of 
this grammar mender's sentence, that as be- 
comes the nominative to this verb, in the infinitive 
mood ! ! 

Will any grammarian attempt to question this ? 
As, after such, much, same, and many, is a pro- 
noun — and it must have either the nominative, or 
the objective case; as, 

" He has as much fruit, as will answer his pur- 
pose." 

" He shall have as many apples as he wants." 
" He has the same kind as I have." 
The philosophy of the thing, is this — when 
such is used for that, this, those, these, or the, as 
is substituted for which ; as, u He has such fruit 
as I want." 

That is, He has that kind of fruit which I want. 
Here, which is a relative, representing kind, 
third person singular, in the objective case, 
governed by want. 

" One may indeed acquire, by mere imitation 
such a knowledge of words, as to enjoy the ordi- 
nary advantages of speech." 

To illustrate the ill construction of this frame- 
work of words, it may be well to substitute " that" 
for such, and which for as : 

One may indeed acquire, by mere imitation that 
knowledge of words, which to enjoy the ordinary 
advantages of speech ! ! 

Mr. G. Brown certainly must enjoy advantages 
of speech much greater than ordinary — but whe- 
ther he will enjoy himself after finding what his 
book is, may be doubted ! 

Corrected. — One may indeed acquire by mere 
imitation, a knowledge of words, which will give 
him the ordinary advantages of speech. {Will 
give him — ) as to enjoy/ 

" He speaks fluently." 

Let us now see what sort of English is em- 
ployed by the author in teaching children to 
parse. 

"Speaks is an irregular active intransitive verb, 
from speak, spake, speaking, spoken; found in 
the indicative mood, present tense, third person 
singular." 

That this mender of Murray is a profound 
etymologist, is obvious from the manner in which 
he derives the verb, speaks : 

"Speaks is an irregular active intransitive verb, 
from speak, spake, speaking, and spoken/" 

That is, syeaks is a verb derived from 
from spake, from speaking, and from spoken// 



190 



APPEAL. 



Speaks has almost as many parents as Murray's 
Grammar has authors '. ! 

Mr. G. Brown has certainly made a wonderful 
discovery in verbal pedigree! He has found out, 
by some means or other, that the parents descend 
from their children ! ! " Speaks" he says, " is 
from spake, from speaking, and from spoken ! ! .'" 
Grammarians, in general, would rather say that 
spake, speaking, and spoken, are from speaks, or 
speak .' 

" The Institutes" however, may find some 
apology for not having all that precision in gra- 
matical structure, which the rigid rules of the 
science seem to demand. The great work of the 
mind has occupied the author's entire attention : 
of this all must be satisfied, who have feasted upon 
the sumptuous meals afforded in his masterly de- 
finitions. These clearly show that the learned 
mender has not consented to barter the brilliancy 
of intellect for the tinsel show of mere phraseo- 
logy. If the horizon of grammar has been ex- 
ceeded, or enlarged, it has been for the noble dis- 
play of the author's expansive intellection. Verbal 
etiquette, and syntactical discipline, have waived 
their claims, to feast upon a rare exhibition of pa- 
tient and accurate research, — to gaze on the eo- 
ruscant flashes of genius, whose torrent course 
prostrates all the difficulties in grammatical solu- 
tion, takes up the march of the conqueror, and 
fixes upon itself the plaudits of victory ! 

The British grammarians have said much — 
their extravagance dampens the spirit of the pu- 
pil, at the very threshold of his study ; and their 
incongruities, and palpable contradictions force 
him from the sound, and sober exercise of his 
judgment. They have, as a uniform course, either 
founded their system upon false principles, or irre- 
levant ones. This surely is a matter of surprise, 
and regret. But it is matter of astonishment, and 
of lamentation to find so many Americans labour- 
ing to improve these radical defects by varying 
the size, style, and mode of the British essays. 
The great pretensions of these menders, that their 
varied modifications of Murray's errors, destroy 
the fundamental rottenness of the British system, 
is lamentable as the sure proof of unsound minds. 
And inasmuch as these overgrown pretensions in- 
fluence the credulous, and unwary, they are hostile 
to the advancement of science, and destructive 
as a bane to public utility. Did I, could I believe 
these men meritorious, I would bid them God 
speed. But knowing, as I do, that these new 
modellers are engaged in an enterprise which even 
the angels of heaven could not prosecute with any 
degree of success, I should rejoice to witness the 
spire of their fame crumble into dust, and the 
schools of our country liberated from the mental 
bonds which these men, in their rage to become 
authors, have laboured to rivet upon American 
children. 



JOHN COMLY'S GRAMMAR. 

" English Grammar, made easy to the teacher 
and pupil — originally compiled for the use of West- 
Town Boarding School, by John Comly." 

In the first clause of this title page, I find to is 
used in the place of for. It is easy to me to learn, 
is certainly not English— yet Mr. Comly, with all 
his talents, learning, and experience, writes thus 
upon the very title page of an English Grammarl 

From the omission of an before "English 
Grammar^ it seems that the author has concluded 
that this phrase, even without an article, means 
the book ; yet it certainly can mean nothing but 
the science itself! Mr. Comly has declared, then, 
that the science of English grammar was origin- 
ally compiled for the sole use of West-Town 
Boarding School — yea, more — he has unintention- 
ally said that he himself is the author of this 
science / Nor does the paradox stop here — for 
from the omission of an, it certainly seems that 
the very science of English grammar is a compi- 
lation — hence it appears that sciences as well as 
books, are compiled 1 '. 

"Rule 29." 

" In the use of prepositions, and words that de- 
pend upon each other, particular care should be 
taken to express relations by appropriate words, 
and to maintain a regular and clear construction 
throughout." — Comly's Grammar. 

To say any thing upon the inutility of this 
rule, is not necessary — this is demonstrated from 
the little influence which it has exerted over the 
pen of its own author. But to reject its redundant 
words, and to express its spirit in appropriate 
terms, may be of some service to a few of my 
readers. 

Particular care should be taken to express our 
ideas by appropriate words, and in properly con- 
structed sentences. Or — 

Particular care should be taken to express our 
ideas properly. 



The next Grammar from which I shall select a 
few of the numerous improprieties, is that com- 
piled by Mr. Kirkham. To render this work 
worthy of public patronage, every thing has been 
done which has lain within the power of its 
learned author to accomplish ! Whatever defects, 
therefore, may diminish the merits of the pro- 
duction, no want of attention can be imputed to 
its author. The edition from which the following 
sentences have been taken, was printed in 1823. 

" The author does not wish, like a vain pedant, 
to inveigh against his predecessors ; but he is 
very sanguine in the belief that public opinion 
will support him in pronouncing a great majority 
of our authors defective, at least, in manner, if 
they are not in matter." 



APPEAL. 



191 



As vanity is a prominent trait in the character 
of a pedant, the adjective u vain" is redundant; 
and as the word "pedant" convoys no idea of a 
reproachful disposition, it is difficult to conceive 
any propriety in the use of " inveigh" f 

The word " sangiiine" is not well used — indeed, 
the phrase, " but he is sanguine in the belief" is 
burdensome — the same idea may be expressed in 
one word : 

" But he is satisfied that public opinion will 
support him in pronouncing a majority of our 
authors defective, at least in manner, if they are 
not in matter." 

"A majority of our authors defective, at least, in 
manner, if they are not in matter." 

By the phrase, "at least" Mr. Kirkham intends 
to suggest that a majority of our authors are de- 
fective in something besides manner — but by an 
error in the position of the phrase, he not only 
fails in this attempt, but implies that they may be 
entirely wrong both in manner, and matter! 

They are defective at least — that is, they are 
certainly defective, and may be entirely wrong. 

The phrase, at least, has a bearing upon what 
precedes it — as, 

He at least, joined that party. 

That is, he, even if no other one, joined. 

2. He joined at least, that party. 

That is, he joined, although he might not have 
continued. 

3. He joined that party at least. 

That is, he joined that party, if he did not this, 
or some others. 

11 And yet they are receiving their completion 
in part at leasts at the present day." — Bishop 
Newton. 

" But he is sanguine in the belief that public 
opinion will support him in pronouncing a great 
majority of our authors defective, at least in man- 
ner, if they are not in matter." 

"They" and "are" are redundant. 

" But he is satisfied that public opinion will 
support him in pronouncing a majority of our 
authors defective in manner at least, if not in 
matter." 

From the words support, and pronouncing, one 
would very naturally conclude that Mr. Kirkham 
has been constituted a kind of literary tribunal, 
before whom the greater part of the authors in his 
district had been arraigned, and put upon their 
trial for the crime of defect ; and that after a 
patient investigation, he had pronounced them 
guilt}- upon the testimony of public opinion ! To 
do away this authoritative appearance, the sen- 
tence should read in this way : 

" But he is satisfied that the public have long 
been convinced that a great majority of our authors 
is defective in manner at least, if not in matter." 

" And if your ambition should not aspire at 
eminence," &c. 



Better thus : 

And if your ambition should not lead you to 
aspire, &c. 

The act of aspiring belongs not to the ambition, 
but to the individual who, under the influence of 
ambition, performs it. 

" And if your ambition should not aspire at 
eminence," &c. 

I should be sorry to say that this sentence vio- 
lates Mr. Kirkham's own rules — but we verily 
believe that it is not in all respects in unison with 
Mr. Comly's 29th Rule ! ! 

"In the use of prepositions, and words that 
depend on each other, particular care should be 
taken to express relations by appropriate words." 

Now, had Mr. Kirkham learned the use of prepo- 
sitions by this rule, he certainly would have used 
to instead of at. So it is, one author will not learn 
from another — it is easier for him to bear the bur- 
den consequent upon ignorance than to bring his 
mind to the slavish task of acquiring knowledge 
from any of his fellow-craft! 

Under page 6 may be found the following sen- 
tence : 

" The author considers it a duty devolving upon 
himself, to express his gratitude to those friends 
of literature who have so liberally patronized his 
work anterior to its publication." 

That the author has been placed under strono- 
obligations to those who have recommended his 
work, cannot be doubted by any acquainted with 
its merits ; and that he has felt the weight of these 
obligations is obvious from the profuse and em- 
phatic manner in which he expresses his thanks 
in the preceding sentence. That he was entirely 
devoted to his patrons, is evident from the deformity 
of the shrine upon which the oblation is offered 
up. 

" The author considers it a duty devolving upon 
himself to express his gratitude," &c. 

The word, "himself," is happily used for the 
author is the only one in the community, who 
ought to feel grateful to those who have been in- 
strumental in procuring the introduction of his 
Grammar into our schools ! 

I am pleased to find that the author's language, 
and style are so well adapted to the solemnity of 
the occasion. The gravity and emphasis of the 
first line give a tone, and dignity to the subject, 
which nearly equal his precision, and beauty in 
his use of the tenses of verbs : 

" The author considers it a duty devolving upon 
himself to express his gratitude to those friends 
of literature who have so liberally patronized his 
work anterior to its publication." 

A little school Miss, in addressing her friends, 
says, — " I wrote anterior to the arrival of my 
brother." 

Another one says — " I had written before the 
arrival of my brother." 



192 



APPEAL. 



But an author of an English Grammar, designed 
to teach school children accuracy in the use of their 
language, says — I "have" written before the arri- 
val of my brother ! ! 

There is something very seductive in the idea 
of living among men, after death, upon a fixed, 
formal title page 1 

Alas ! if these grammar menders could get a 
mere glimpse of themselves as they figure upon 
their title pages, I think they would be as anxious 
f it seclusion of life, and brevity of existence, as 
they now are for notoriety of person, and perpe- 
tuity of being ! I have room to exhibit one of 
these pages only, — but I hardly know which to 
take — for where there is no difference, it is hard 
to choose. Kirkham lies before me — his fate is 
the result of mere chance — I prefer no one — all I 
desire is to give a fair sample of the whole. 

English Grammar in Familiar Lectures ; 
accompanied by a Compendium, embracing a New 

SYSTEMATIC ORDER OF PARSING, A NEW SYSTEM 

of Punctuation, Exercises in False Syntax, and 
a System of Philosophical Grammar, in Notes. 
By SAMUEL KIRKHAM." 

The use of " accompanied by," gives legs to the 
author's Compendium — it is made, by this phrase, 
to travel about with the book ! John was here, 
accompanied by his brother ! English Grammar, 
in Familiar Lectures, accompanied ! by a Com- 
pendium ! 

That is, They purchased the horse accompanied 
by his saddle and bridle ! ! 

They purchased the horse with his saddle and 
bridle. 

Now, as Mr. Kirkham's Compendium would 
take up less room without legs, I would advise 
him to amputate them by the use of with for 
" accompanied by!!" I will just take them off, 
that its author may see how the creature will ap- 
pear snake fashion ? 

" English Grammar, in Familiar Lectures, with 
a Compendium — Embracing a New Systematic 
Order of Parsing, a New System of Punctuation, 
Exercises in False Syntax, and a System of Philo- 
sophical Grammar, in Notes." 

The author means to say, that his Philosophic 
Grammar only, is in Notes — but by rendering 
this page plenary, all, except himself, can see that 
he has said that his whole book is in Notes I 

Let me now exhibit Mr. Kirkham as he has 
presented himself: 

English Grammar, in Familiar Lectures, accom- 
panied by a Compendium, embracing a New Sys- 
tematic Order of Parsing in Notes, a new System 
of Punctuation in Notes, Exercises in False Syn- 
tax in Notes, and a System of Philosophic Gram- 
mar in Notes ! ! 

I have had the curiosity to examine this book 
of Notes; and I must admit that I have found 
many queer notes ; and I think that the author's 
note upon the meaning of the word again, should 



certainly be ranked among them. This note may 
be found under page 87. 

" My friend has returned again ; but his health 
is not very good. Again is an adverb of time in- 
definite — it expresses a period of time not pre- 
cisely defined ! ! !" 

Who that has not seen Mr. S. Kirkham's book 
of Notes, has ever known that " again" means a 
period of time ! ? 

" To put the learner in possession of a brief and 
comprehensive system of grammar, which will 
more rapidly facilitate his progress than those in 
general use, is the design of the author in pre. 
senting this little treatise to the public" 

This sentence, with all its novelty, is not plea- 
sing. The phrase, " to put the learner in posses, 
sion, is not happy. The sentence is improper in 
the position of its several members also. As they 
now stand, the reader must either begin at the 
close of the period, and read backwards, or be held 
in suspense till he nearly approaches the end of 
the sentence. The following arrangement may 
relieve the reader, though it does not fully correct 
the sentence : 

The author's design in this little treatise, is to 
furnish the learner with a grammar, which will 
more rapidly facilitate his progress than those in 
general use. 

" If it have the desired effect, no other apology 
will be necessary." 

The second sentence should be incorporated 
with the first — and, instead of commencing with 
if, it should begin with and. 

The word, have, is not so good as produce. 
'* This" should be substituted for the, and desired. 

" The author's design in this little treatise, is to 
furnish the learner with a grammar, which will 
more readily facilitate his progress than those in 
general use — and, if it produces this effect, no 
other apology will be necessary." 

The last clause, however, which constitutes the 
author's second sentence, is useless, and should be 
omitted. 

A shame to the age in which we live, that 
every uptsart who can raise and fall the eight 
notes, should undertake to construct a Gamut — 
and, to the disgrace of our country be it spoken, 
that many teachers will listen to these towering 
pretensions, hymn the impious jargon of the 
sciolist, and hush the heaven-born music of 
Zorahn. 

MR. CARDELL'S GRAMMAR. 

Mr, Cardell has declared to the world,, that the 
present populaf system of English grammar is 
founded entirely in error. He has, in a number 
of essays upon this science, treated with great 
severity all those who had written upon it, before 
he raised his pen in opposition to the course 
which they have pursued. 

To sustain his position, he has taken different 



APPEAL. 



193 



grounds ; and, among 1 them may be found an 
alleged inability on the part of those who use the 
English language, to use it with propriety. There- 
fore it may be proper to employ the superior 
excellence of Mr. Cardell's own composition, as a 
criterion for ascertaining the superiority of his so 
much vaunted system of grammar. The author's 
introduction commences thus : 

" Reason is the distinguishing excellence of man, 
and language the means by which its operations 
are performed." 

This sentence supposes that reason remained 
perfectly inactive till language was formed ! Yet 
Mr. Cardell's whole system proceeds upon the 
ground that language is a human production ! 
Perhaps the learned author has not meant to say, 
that language is the only means by which reason 
operates — if so, he should have used a instead of 
the'. 

Reason is the distinguishing excellence of man, 
and language a means by which its operations 
are performed. ' < 

The third sentence of the author's introduction 
reads thus: 

'•'•The learning, talents, and means of research 
possessed by many who have spent the labour of 
their lives in the same field, are not to be depre- 
ciated or denied." 

That is, the learning of research, the talents of 
research, and the means of research. 

The means of research is proper — but the 
learning of research is not correct; and the talents 
of research, is shamefully bad! 

It cannot be pleaded in this case, that of sub- 
joins research to means only : for wherever of 
is used, it must subjoin its object to each of the 
preceding subjects. Hence, when it is said that 
Messrs. Johnson, Stevenson, and Jones of Boston, 
are in Philadelphia, the meaning is, that Mr. 
Johnson of Boston, Mr. Stevenson of Boston, and 
Mr. Jones of Boston, are in Philadelphia. But if 
of subjoined, Boston to Jones only, then, indeed, 
it would follow, that Mr. Jones only is in Phila- 
delphia ! ! 

Corrected : 

The means, talents, and learning, possessed by 
many who have spent the labour of their lives in 
the same field, are not to be depreciated or denied. 
(" Of research''') (the labour of.") 

The fourth sentence in the author's introduction 
reads thus: 

" The remarkable difference of writers from each 
other, even in the same language, and still more 
the evident variance from philosophic truth showed 
thai there must be something very defective in the 
manner of conducting the inquiry. 

Yes, and among all the truths which can be 
brought to show " that something must be wrong 
in the manner of conducting the inquiry" none 



are more to the point than the defects of this very 
sentence ! 

" The remarkable difference of writers." 
" Of writers," should be among writers! 
" Variance from philosophic truth." 
" Variance" docs not signify a departure from , 
but rather an approximation of the agents under a 
spirit of contention. We say, he is at variance 
with his brother — but not, he is at variance from 
his brother ! ! Had Mr. Cardell said, John con- 
tends from his brother, he would have been just 
as much within " the laws of matter and thought," 
as he is in the expression, variance from each 
other ! 

The words, "from each other," are redundant ; 
and in attempting to correct the sentence I shall 
omit them. 

The remarkable difference among writers, even 
in the same language, and still more the various 
opinions upon philosophic truths, have shown that 
something is very defective in the manner of con- 
ducting the inquiry. 

MR. GREENLEAF'S GRAMMAR. 

" As it is considered that grammar simplified 
has arrived at the summit of improvement, it is 
put into stereotype." 

Finding this triumphal arch raised upon the 
outside of Mr. Greenleaf 's book, I have a little 
curiosity to see what is in the inside of this work. 
The system is replete with philological phenom- 
ena — but I shall confine my remarks to the few 
which are presented in the first sentence of the 
author's Preface. 

" Notwithstanding the numerous publications 
upon English grammar, and the ability with 
which many of them are written, it is a fact which 
I believe few will deny, that this science has never 
been so simplified, as to render the study of it at 
once concise, easy and inviting." 

This sentence not only presents two words that 
cannot be parsed, but exhibits a fair specimen of 
the work from which it has been taken. I allude 
to the words, publications and ability. These 
nouns which occupy so conspicuous a place in the 
sentence, are neither in the nominative, possessive, 
nor objective case ! I will now attempt to correct 
the author's sentence, the ill construction of which, 
clearly shows that he should learn English gram- 
mar before he undertakes to simplify Mr. Mur- 
ray ! 

Notwithstanding the publications on English 
grammar are numerous, and the ability with 
which many of them are written, highly respect, 
able, it is a fact, which / believe few will deny, 
that this science has never yet been so simplified 
as to render it at once concise, easy, and in- 
viting. 

In this construction "publications" is in the 
nominative case to are, expressed ; and " ability" 
to is understood. 



194 



APPEAL. 



But it may be contended that " notwithstanding" 
is a preposition, and that "publications" and 
" ability" are in the objective case, and governed 
by " notwithstanding." 

In Grammar Simplified, I find the word given 
as a conjunction, without the least intimation that 
it can ever be a preposition. That notwithstanding 
is not a preposition, is proved from the fact, that 
it never can refer to any of the objective pronouns ; 
as, notwithstanding them, notwithstanding him. 

This word, however, may be used in connection 
with he, they, I, she, $(C., with perfect propriety. 

All prepositions can be used with the objective 
case; as, of him, with them, Sfc. 

"Notwithstanding" cannot be used with the 
objective case ; therefore it can not be a preposi- 
tion. 

1. I will go notwithstanding him ! 

2. I shall return, notwithstanding them ! 

This word is ever a conjunction, and subjoins a 
mono; as, I will go notwithstanding heibrbids it, 
1 shall return notwithstanding they are against 
it. 

" Notwithstanding" is frequently used in monos 
which are elliptical ; as, I shall return notwith- 
standing your commands. 

That is, notwithstanding your commands are 
that I shall not — or, notwithstanding your com- 
mands are against it. 

In a work entitled " Johnson's English Diction, 
ary, as improved by Todd,"' &c, I have found the 
following account of" notwithstanding." 

" Notwithstanding, not-with-stand-ing, conj. 
[Thisword is properly a participial adjective, as 
it is compounded of not and withstanding, and 
answers exactly to the Latin non obstante,] with- 
out hindrance or obstruction from." 

The reason which is here offered for calling 
" notwithstanding" a participial adjective, is not 
sound : and the position with respect to the mean- 
ing of u notwithstanding," is without the least 
plausibility. Indeed, the signification of this word 
is the very reverse of that which is presented in 
the above quotation : for, instead of denoting that 
there is no obstruction, it always indicates that 
there is an obstruction, and implies that it may be 
overcome or removed ; as, He will return notwith. 
standing your commands ; He will pay his debts 
notwithstanding his poverty ; I shall go notwith. 
standing I am sick. 

That is, although your commands may obstruct, 
yet I shall return. 

Although his poverty produces a great obstruc- 
tion to the paying of his debts, yet he will pay 
them. 

Although my illness is an obstacle to my being 
there, yet I shall go. 

Notwithstanding the publications upon English 
grammar are numerous, and the ability with which 
many of them are written, highly respectable, it is 



a fact, that this science has never yet been so sim. 
plijied as to render the study of it at once concise, 
easy and inviting. 

That is, although the numerous publications, 
and the great ability, oppose the position taken in 
the concluding clause of the above sentence, yet 
this obstruction may be overcome, and the posi- 
tion " that this science has never yet been so sim- 
plified," &c. sustained. 

Much has been said by a few of the learned 
respecting the merits of" Grammar Simplified. — 
They have all stated that its superiority consists 
in that simplification which arises from presenting 
the subject of grammar to the eye. And, indeed, 
the title of the work is — An Ocular Analysis of 
the English Language." 

Now, if I show that the blind can learn from 
Mr. Greenleaf 's Ocular Grammar, as fast as those 
who can see, I trust that all will conclude, that 
the principle for which his work has been so 
highly extolled, and to which his title page so 
forcibly alludes, cannot be found in his Grammar ! 

Mr. Mathews says : 

" It has reduced the elementary principles of 
grammar into the form of a chart — and thus not 
only aids the memory of the pupil, but makes him, 
at one view, see the bearing." 

Mr. Ross, with others, speaks as follows : 

" Mr. Greenleaf 's method possesses one peculi- 
arity, which affords singular advantages ; the ear 
as well as the eye is continually, and yet agreeably 
impressed by the subject. A surprising exempli- 
fication of the foregoing remarks was presented in 
the case of a pupil of Mr. Greenleaf, who was 
blind. The knowledge of etymology and syntax, 
evinced in the examination of this interesting 
pupil, who had attended the usual course of les- 
sons, was, in the estimation of many spectators, 
an ample demonstration of the superior advantages 
of Mr. Greenleaf's plan!" 

James Ross, A. M. 
Author of Ross' Greek and Latin Grammar, 
Vocabulary, &c. 

Rev. Dr. Thomas Dunn, 
Rev. James Smith, 
Rev. William Smith, 
Dr. Charles W. Parish. 

Philadelphia, April 2, 1822. 

And how, pray, is it proved that the eye is con- 
tinually, and agreeably impressed by this Ocular 
Grammar ? Why, by the astonishing progress of 
a blind boy ! ! Does not the case cited by those 
distinguished gentlemen, afford an ample demon- 
stration, that Grammar Simplified is not an ocular 
analysis of the English language ?" — and that the' 
principle ascribed to this system by those who 
have recommended the work, forms no part of 
Greenleaf 's method ! 

I shall do Mr. Greenleaf the favor of instructing 
those who have not seen his work, respecting its 



APPEAL 



195 



mysterious simplicity. As a general remark I 
would observe, that the simplicity of his system 
consists in confusing the mind by presenting upon 
the same, page, almost the whole of this abstruse 
work. Yes, upon the ninth page of " Grammar 
Simplified," I find ehjmology, and syntax, insepa- 
rably leagued against all the powers of conception 
of which the human intellect is master. Yes, 
strange as it may appear, upon the ninth page of 
this work, the parts of speech, the various divis- 
ions of nouns, pronouns, numbers, persons, declen- 
sions, cases, moods, tenses, lists of adjectives, 
minutiae, and exceptions, with the different rules 
of syntax, are arrayed in small Brevier type ! 
And to add to the simplicity of this technical 
group, or grammatical assemblage, the superficies 
of the paper plane is cut up into right angles 
which form cells, calculated to separate and con- 
fine the various branches of this wisely huddled 
convention of terminology. 

If these compartments are necessary in order 
to aid the eye in dividing matter from matter, sub- 
ject from subject, sign from sign &c, does it ap- 
pear that the mind can separate this consolidated 
package, so as to understand the massive science 
here presented ? Who, before the publication of 
" Grammar Simplified," ever heard that method, 
that simplicity, consists in burdening the tender 
mind with all the principles, all the technicality, 
all the exceptions, all the rules, divisions, subdi- 
visions, with all the forms, windings, courses, and 
attitudes of an extensive abstruse science, at the 
same time ! 

What says the immortal Locke ? " The mind 
can successfully attend to but one thing at the 
same time." 

And what is the verdict of the imperishable 
Johnson ? " There is no other method of teach- 
ing that of which any one is ignorant, than by 
means of something already known." 

To the correctness of this sentiment every phi- 
losopher, and every mechanic can attest. Does he 
who learns a trade grasp the whole at once 1 or 
does he begin at the simple preparatory steps, and 
move on as his faculties become ripened, and his 
judgment matured by practice? 

PICKET'S GRAMMAR. 

The following is the title page of this work : 

" Analytical School Grammar. Picket's Gram- 
mar of the English Language, comprising its 
principles and rules : adapted to the business of 
instruction in Primary Schools. By A. Picket, 
author of the American School class books, the Ju- 
venile Spelling Book, S$c, fyc." 

" The most certain method of rendering a people 
free and happy is to establish a correct method of 
education.' 1 '' 

" Analytical School Grammar." 

As English grammars are usually written for 
schools, it is not easy to account for the use of this 



inceptive phrase, "Analytical School Grammar ! .'" 
Has this phrase been used to aid the following 
clause in showing that the author's grammar is 
designed for schools ? " adapted to the business of 
instruction in primary schools ! ! " 

" Picket's Grammar of the English Language, 
comprising its principles and rules." 

The clause comprising its principles, and rules, 
is as redundant as the first phrase is improper, 
useless, and queer! If it is a grammar of the 
English language, does it not follow, of course, 
that it comprises its principles ? 

Nor can the just critic stop here — for in this 
redundant clause, there are two redundant words : 

" Comprising its principles and rules." 

What new idea does the word rules, express ? 

" Picket's Grammar of the English Language, 
comprising its principles and rules, adapted to the 
business of instruction in primary schools." 

Improved : 

" Picket's Grammar of the English language, 
adapted to the business of instruction in primary 
schools." 

"Adapted to the business of instruction in pri- 
mary schools." 

The use of the word, business, proves pretty 
conclusively that Mr. Picket does not understand 
the business of making Grammars! The learned 
author, and experienced teacher, has appropriated 
his book exclusively to the instructor. It is 
adapted to the business of instruction. Who 
gives the instruction ? Does the pupil, or the 
teacher give it ? But even if there is no error in 
this respect, there is a great want of taste in 
another point of view. The commonness of the 
word, business, has made it too foul to be used in 
the title page of a school book — instead, therefore, 
of employing the word, business, which is be- 
smeared with the filth of commonality, I would 
find some clean word, expressive of the true idea; 
namely, that the book is designed for both teacher, 
and pupil — 

Picket's Grammar of the English Language, 
adapted to the use of primary schools. 

" Of instruction in" is a useless part, and it 
should be omitted. 

" The most certain method of rendering a people 
free and happy, is to establish a correct method 
of education." 

While I cheerfully respond to this sentiment, 1 
am sorry to condemn the manner in which it is 
expressed. That a period so just in idea, and so 
deformed in structure, should be found in print, is 
not singular. But that a professed Philologist 
should select such a one as the motto for a Gram, 
mar, is both singular, and unfortunate ! 

The period speaks of a highly dignified subject ; 
namely, the most sure means for setting an 
enslaved people free, and rendering them happy. 
And I verily believe that when Mr. Picket shall 
have acquired a just philological taste, he will 



196 



APPEAL. 



condemn the words, certain, and method, as too 
feeble, and common to hold a place in the motto 
of his Grammar ! Perhaps the words, sure, and 
means, would answer as well as certain and 
method — 

" The most sure means of rendering- a people 
free and happy, is, to establish a correct method 
of education." 

In speaking- of rendering a people free, the 
sentence clearly alludes to a nation, or a country 
that is in a state of slavery. But, prisoners, and 
slaves are not rendered free — they are set free ! 
We may speak of rendering a people happy — 
though not of rendering them free ! The prayer 
of the coloured man was not, render me free, but 
"set me free." 

Therefore I would recommend Mr. Picket to 
adopt the language of this sable petitioner, which 
will not only partially correct, but greatly beautify 
his motto : 

The most sure means of setting a people free, 
and rendering them happy, is, a correct method 
of education. 

ANALYTICAL SCHOOL GRAMMAR. 

"Picket's Grammar of the English Language, 
comprising its principles and rules : adapted to 
the business of instruction in Primary Schools. 
By A. Picket, author of the American School 
class Looks, the Juvenile Spelling Book, Sfc. fyc." 

" The most certain method of rendering a 
people free and happy, is, to establish a correct 
method of education.' 1 '' 

Was it not that Mr. Picket has sanctioned this 
sentence by giving it a place upon the very title 
page of a Grammar, I should venture to say that 
the phrase, "correct method of education " is 
nearly as incorrect as the present system of 
education is inefficient ! 

Partially corrected : 

Picket's Grammar of the English Language, 
adapted to the use of primary schools, by A. 
Picket, author of the American school class books, 
the juvenile spelling book, &c. &c. 

The most sure means of setting a people free, 
and rendering them happy, is to establish a cor- 
rect system of education. 

Fully corrected : 

An English Grammar, adapted to the use of 
primary schools : by A. Picket, author of the 
American school class books, the juvenile spelling 
book, &c. &c. 

The sure means for preserving the freedom, and 
happiness of a people, is to discountenance that 
quackery which renders art hateful to youth, and 
science loathsome to adults. 

" Grammar, says Dr. Adam, is founded on com. 
mon sense." 

The above is the first sentence, in Mr. Picket's 
Grammar. 



The following is the second : 

" Every sentiment expressed by words exempli- 
Jies its rules, and the ignorant observe them as 
well as the learned." 

I would ask Mr. Picket whether in, as used in 
the fourth sentence of the preface of his Grammar, 
exemplifies any rule in the science of grammar: 

"Children discover their capacity for under- 
standing the rules of grammar by putting them 
in practice." 

As put requires into, this sentence appears to 
me to exemplify a violation of a rule in grammar ! 

1. He put his hand, not in, but into his pocket. 

Is the bread put, not in, but into the oven ? 

In the same preface I find the following : 

"Grammar is nothing else than a delineation 
of those rules which we observe in every expres- 
sion of thought by words." 

If the sentiment of this sentence is true, whence 
does Mr. Picket derive authority for the use of 
" than ?" 

"He is nothing else than a man," is as good as 
Mr. Picket's, " grammar is nothing else than a 
delineation," &c. 

Grammar is nothing more than a delineation, 
is English — so also is this — grammar is nothing 
but a delineation. 

I would here observe to Mr. Picket, notwith- 
standing his attempt to overthrow my theory, is a 
high recommendation of his profound learning, 
that than cannot be used without an adjective in 
the comparative degree ; as, he is more vain than 
learned. 

"Grammar is nothing else than a delineation 
of those rules which we observe in every expression 
of thought by words." 

The reader will observe that this literary Ajax, 
is quite emphatic — grammar is nothing else than 
a delineation of those rules which we observe in 
every expression of thought. 

Let me now see whether Mr. Picket has deline- 
ated gramjnar in every expression in the following 
sentence : 

" I have collected, from the most authentic 
sources, such materials, and endeavoured to 
modify and arrange them into such forms" See. 

For a grammarian to speak of modifying a 
thing into a form, is laughable — and for an author 
of a grammar to tell of arranging things into 
form, is "preposterously absurd."* 

If I am not deceived in my ideas of grammar, 
the following alterations will much improve, if not 
entirely correct Mr. Picket : 

I have collected, from the most authentic 
sources, such materials, and endeavoured to 
modify, and arrange them in a way which, in 
my judgment, the nature of the subject, and the 
business of instruction require. 

* For the accuracy of the phrase, preposterously absurd, 
or in other words, absurdly absurd, I give Mr. Picket 
himself! ! 



APPEAL, 



197 



To modify them into a form ! 
To arrange them into a form ! 

ROSWELL C. SMITH'S GRAMMAR. 

11 If any one should take up this work with tho 
impression that he has met with another Murray's 
Grammar, <Scc." 

That is, should any one take up this work under 
the prevalence, under the influence, of the im- 
pression that he lias met with another Murray's 
Grammar, &cc. 

Perhaps the use of under, would be better than 
that of with, in this particular case. With, aided 
by the context, seems to carry the idea that the 
impression under whose prevalence the act is done, 
is in fact the instrument with which it is done. 
" If any one should take up this work with the 
impression," Sec. 

The impression, when connected with the act 
of taking up, seems to resemble an instrument 
rather than a cause. We take up books with the 
band. I do not think, however, that the use of 
with in the above instance, is a very great impro- 
priety. But, from the errors which pervade the 
rest of the sentence, I am disposed to attribute the 
propriety in this case of with more to chance than 
to knowledge. 

"If any one should take up this work with the 
impression that he has met with another Murray's 
Grammar, he is respectfully requested to suspend 
his judgment, &c." 

Mr. Smith intends to say another Grammar — 
but he has not only failed in this attempt ; but he 
has actually created a second Murray I Says Mr. 
Smith, you have not found the well known Lindley 
Murray's Grammar in the work which you have 
just taken up, but a Grammar of another Murray ! 
I presume that this other Murray is Roswell C. 
Smith Murray ! 

1. Another boy's book. 
3. Another man's hat. 
3. Another Murray's Grammar. 

Corrected. — Should any one take up this book 
under the impression that he has found another 
Grammar by Mr. Murray, he is respectfully re- 
quested to suspend his judgment till a careful 
perusal of its contents has furnished some data 
upon which to predicate a just, and candid opinion 
of its merits. 

1 . Upon should be exchanged for of: we cannot 
say, predicate on, or upon. 

2. The words, its, contents, some, data, upon, 
which, to, predicate, a, just, and, candid, opinion, 
and of, are redundant ! ! 

3. "Has furnished" should be exchanged for 
shall have furnished. 

4. If should be rejected ; and should should be 
the first word in the sentence. 

5. If any man should take up this work with 
the impression that he has met with another 
Murray's Grammar, &c. 



Now, a man, who is under this impression, 
would not be very likely to take up Mr. Smith's 
book at all ! What, pray, could induce any one 
to take it up? Mr. Smifh says that the impres- 
sion that it is another Murray's Grammar induces 
him to take it up. If any one should take up 
this book with the impression that it is, Sec. 

Now, it appears to me that this impression 
would rather induce one to lay it down than to 
take it up! Indeed does not Mr. Smith himself 
mean this ? 

From a slight glance, some ma)' be under the 
impression, that this work is nothing but Murray's 
Grammar. 

Or, 

From a slight glance, some may lay down this 
work, under the impression that it is nothing but 
another edition of Murray's Grammar. 

What a grammarian must he be, who by a 
blunder in syntax, gives that as the cause for 
taking up, which he intends as the cause for lay- 
ing down ! Things seems strangely inverted br 
grammarians : " taking up" is used for throwing 
down, and "throwing down" for taking up, so 
that Mr. Smith will hardly know whether 1 have 
taken him up, or thrown him down .' But should 
he find much difficulty in settling this point, I 
would commend his case to the teachers of our 
public schools, who, from a long familiarity with 
his work, must be able to give him prompt relief! 
In the mean time I must be excused for putting 
Mr. Smith's old wine into a. new bottle. 

Those, who, from a slight glance at this work, 
are under the impression that it is Murray's Gram- 
mar, are invited to correct their error by a full 
examination. (28 words.) 

" If any one should take up this work with the 
impression that he has met with another Murray's 
Grammar, he is respectfully requested to suspend 
his judgment till a careful perusal of its contents 
has furnished some data on which to predicate a 
just and candid opinion of its merits. (50 words.) 
(22 redundant words.) 

JOAB BRACE'S GRAMMAR. 

(The following sentence is from a grammar by 
Joab Brace. The few reflections which I have 
made upon some of the improprieties that pervade 
it, may be ascribed to the attempt of him, and his 
brother to turn public opinion against my works, 
while they were preparing theirs !) 

" Its author was a teacher of age, of experience 
ia teaching, and of uncommon professional tact." 

« Of Age." 
This is a very common mono : we often hear it 
said, The son is of age. And in one instance in 
the New Testament, this very mono is used to 
express a competency to act for one's self: " he is 
of age — ask him." But as used by Mr. Brace, 
this mono seems to indicate an inferiority in age, 



198 



APPEAL, 



or in something else, which renders him incompe- 
tent to act for others in the cause of education. 

" Lennie's Grammar was published some years 
since in Edinburgh. Its author was a teacher of 
age." 

Had Mr. Brace said, Its author is of age, he 
would have been understood to mean that its 
author was capable, competent. He affirms, how- 
ever, that its author was a teacher of age, and 
from the context, seems to wish to mean a teacher 
well stricken in years ! 

" In its general outline, in the arrangement of 
the several parts, and in the manner of presenting 
each, it does indeed correspond in some degree 
with Lennie's Grammar." 

1. " Correspond with' 1 '' imports reciprocation in 
action — but Mr. Brace uses it to express similarity, 
likeness ! 

2. " Of age" means old enough to act for 
oneself— but Mr. Brace employs it to express the 
idea of being too old to act for oneself! I know as 
little of Mr. Brace as he seems to know of English 
grammar. As a man, he may be of age. But as 
an author, he is certainly a minor! 

Should what is here said, be considered by him 
as an attack upon his book, I should be glad to 
correspond with him upon the subject; and I will 
now pledge myself to demonstrate even to himself, 
that his book does not correspond either in prin- 
ciples, or style to the grammar of the English 
Language. 

" Its author was a teacher of age, of experience, 
in teaching, and of uncommon professional tact." 

In the second uncordictive clad, of experience 
of is well used: but the whole mono is redundant. 
"A teacher of age'''' is intended to signify a teacher 
of experience ; hence the mono, " of experience," 
is nothing but a correct way of expressing what 
Mr. Brace had already expressed in an incorrect 
way ! 

" In teaching" is as redundant as is the mono, 
" of experience," — hence as useless in this sentence, 
as is his Grammar in the world. 

[Its author was a teacher] (of experience) (in 
teaching.) Is there any thing more in the above 
three monos, than there is in the following two ? 

"Its author was a teacher of experience. 

and of uncommon professional tact." 

This is the conclusion of the above sentence, 
and is no doubt intended to impart a finish, a 
garnishing, to the whole. But of what essential 
service is the word, professional 7 Is it not as 
important to insert '•'■professional" before experi. 
ence, as it is to put it before tact . 

Its author was a teacher of professional ex- 
perience. 

The word teacher, shows that the experience 
intended, is an experience in the profession of 
teaching And would not the noun, teacher, show 
also that the tact intended by Mr. Brace, is tact 
in the same profession ? 



Its author was a teacher of much tact. 

Is it necessary to add the mono, in teaching ? 

Its author was a teacher of much tact in teaching. 

The use of professional, is pedantic, and pleo- 
nastic, and reminds me of the following encomium : 

"My brother is a broom-maker, of uncommon 
broom-making skill !" 

" Its author is a teacher of age, of experience in 
teaching, and of uncommon professional tact/' 
That is, 

My brother is an old broom-maker, of experience 
in making brooms, and of uncommon broom- 
making tact ! 

Now, in these days of retrenchment, would not 
the following be more acceptable ? 

My brother is a broom-maker of experience, and 
uncommon skill. 

This principle of retrenchment applied to the 
sentence of Mr. Brace, would greatly diminish his 
engine, without any subtraction from its burden, 
or powers. 

Its author was a teacher of experience, and un- 
common tact. 

The redundant parts, then, are — of age, in 
teaching, of, and professional ! What a waste of 
matter, and a crush of words ! 

Under page 5, is the following : 

" This the author is ready to acknowledge, and 
he would express a hope that by an approval of 
the present arrangement, the public may show 
themselves prepared for the full development of 
the perfect plan." 

From this sentence, it seems that the book 
already published by Mr. Brace, is only the first 
ray of that luminary which is to wind up the ca- 
tastrophe of illustration, after this mere gleam 
shall have prepared the benighted vision of the 
"public themselves" for the blazing beams "of his 
perfect plan !" 

The British English grammarians have said 
much — their extravagance dampens the spirits of 
the pupil at the very threshold of his study; and 
their incongruities, and palpable contradictions 
force him from the sound, and sober exercise of 
his judgment. They have founded their system 
upon principles which have been demonstrated 
false. This is certainly a matter of regret. But 
it is matter of astonishment, and lamentation, to 
find so many Americans labouring to improve 
these radical defects by varying the size, style, 
and mode of the British essaj's. 

Mr. Brace says, that his system is built upon 
the basis of Lennie's. 

" It has been already stated that this Grammar 
is arranged on the basis of Lennie's Grammar. 

Had Mr. Brace erected a superstructure upon 
the basis of Lennie's work, he would have fur- 
nished another instance of building upon sand/ 
But he has not only not built upon Lennie's foun- 
dation, but he has not built upon any foundation/ 
. He is without a basis ; and he may be swept off 



APPEAL. 



199 



by a single puff of the critic's breath! He is not 
only without a foundation, but without a super- 
structure also — his title page is a door without a 
temple, without a hinge upon which to turn, or a 
beam on which to hang. What he calls his sys- 
tem, is condemned matter, abstruse beyond the 
powers of illustration, and tangled beyond the 
skill of human method — btnumbing to the judg- 
merit, and enslaving to the memory of the pupil. 
But, then, Mr. Brace is yet in a state of incuba- 
tion — order is yet to be brought out of chaos ; in 
a word, '■''the perfect plan''' is to come forth : the 
author has promised, and it would be infidelity not 
to believe! Chasms are yet to be filled; and 
crooked is to be made straight. There is, then, 
a day of triumph for English Grammar. Let it 
come — I long to see error exchanged for truth, 
confusion for method, contradiction for harmony, 
absurdity for consistency, and foolishness for 
wisdom. But when I consider that this great 
work is to be accomplished by the author of the 
following sentence, I feel . guilty of the sin of 
unbelief. 

" Its author was a teacher of age, of expe- 
rience in teaching, and of uncommon professional 
tact." 

PETER BULLIONS' ENGLISH GRAMMAR. 

" As an art grammar teaches the right method 
of applying these principles to a particular Ian- 
guage, so as thereby to express our thoughts in a 
correct, and proper manner according to estab- 
lished usage." 

This, sentence is certainly a curiosity. Short as 
it is, it comprises seventeen redundant words. 
The sentence has thirty-three words — and ever)' 
idea which is expressed by the thirty-three, is ex- 
pressed by the following sixteen : 

" As an art, it, (grammar) teaches the right 
method of applying these principles to a particular 
language." 

"So as thereby to express our thoughts in a 
correct, and proper manner, according to estab- 
lished usage I 

The syllabane, the right method of applying these 
principles to language, exhausts the subject of 
accuracy. 

"So as thereby to express our thoughts in a 
correct and proper manner." 

What is gained by the use of proper? Do not 
correct and proper mean the same thing ! ? And 
as grammar is established usage with reference to 
language, what good results from the syllabane 
" according to established usage ?" 

The sentence is substantially this : 

As an art grammar teaches the right method 
of applying the principles of grammar to a partic- 
ular language, so as thereby to express our 
thoughts in a correct and proper manner, according 
to the established principles of grammar .' 1 1 



Having given a specimen of the manner in 
which they who mend Mr. Murray, employ the 
English language, it may not be amiss to show in 
what way they who teach by his system, use it. 

MR. ROCHE'S LECTURE ON GRAMMAR. 

EXPLANATION. 

At the time the following notice appeared in 
some of the Philadelphia papers, I made the criti- 
cal remarks that follow it. These were pub- 
lished in the form of a circular entitled the " Hear- 
er's Brief" which was distributed among the 
ladies and gentlemen, assembled to hear the lecture. 
And lest some of my readers should not be so 
acute as to discern my motive for giving them a 
place in this work, it may be well to state, that I 
have thought that his advertisement is a produc- 
tion which merits a perpetuity that a common 
advertising, decaying newspaper, or even the 
" Hearer's Brief," is ill calculated to afford. I 
should be glad to give the lecture itself — but I pre- 
sume that as the papers of great men are rarely 
published before their death, very few of the pres- 
ent generation will be benefitted by that rare ema- 
nation of learning, and wit ! His style of writing 
may be learned from his public notice ; and his 
manner of reasoning may be seen from the follow- 
ing specimen. To show that the author of the 
new theory is wrong in asserting that there is no 
difference in meaning between the two following 
phrases — " a virtuous person, a person of virtue" 
he proceeds as follows : 

" Now it is confidently asserted by Mr. Brown, 
that there is no difference between a man of vir- 
tue, and a virtuous man — but as there is a differ- 
ence between a horse chesnut, and a chesnut horse, 
so also is there between a man of virtue, and a 
virtuous man ! ! " 

" IT Martin Roche will deliver a lecture on 
Friday evening next, the 19th instant, in the 
Franklin Institute, on the subject of English 
Grammar, embracing a comparative review of 
Murray's principles, and those of Mr. James 
Brown's Grammar. To commence at seven 
o'clock. 

"All persons feeling interested are respectfully 
invited to attend. Free admission." — American 
Daily Advertiser. 

" Post factum nullum concilium." 

That Mr. Roche is very capable of discussing 
this subject, is evident from the taste, and skill 
which he discovers in the above notice. In a 
few particulars, however, the gentleman is some- 
what faulty; and, although I have but a moment 
to devote to this subject, I trust that I shall be 
able to point out as many defects as will excite 
his feelings of gratitude, yet not as many as will 
lessen the confidence which he has in himself! 

I believe it is universally conceded, that in the 
construction of a sentence, the central point of 



200 



APPEAL. 



thought, the main thing, should occupy a con. 
spicuous place. This principle rests upon two 
things, viz. — that any other position would not 
only ill comport with the dignity of that upon 
which the whole sentence turns, but would hold 
the reader in suspense longer than is agreeable, or 
necessary. 

" KIT Martin Roche will deliver a lecture on 
Friday evening next, the 19th instant, in the 
Franklin Institute." 

But on what is Mr. Roche to lecture ? Ah ! 
of this the reader is still ignorant ! When I first 
read this advertisement, I was under the impres- 
sion that the would-be-lecturer had selected Friday 
evening as the subject, instead of the time of his 
contemplated lecture ! 

" Martin Roche will deliver a lecture on 
Friday evening!" 

Upon a second reading, however, I learned that 
he intends lecturing on English Grammar — and 
upon this discovery, I arranged the parts of the 
first clause of his sentence, as follows : 

Martin Roche will deliver a lecture on English 
Grammar, in the Franklin Institute, Friday eve- 
ning, the 19th instant, " embracing a comparative 
review of Murray's principles, and those of Mr. 
James Brown's Grammar." 

It is a fundamental principle, that when analo- 
gous ideas are in contiguous sentences, or monos 
of a sentence, they should be expressed in analo- 
gous language, and in analogous construction. 

"For (says Mr. Murray,) when things them- 
selves correspond to each other, we naturally 
expect to find a similar correspondence in the 
words." 

1. " Murray's principles" — 

2. "And those of Mr. James Brown's Grammar." 
The second clause is entirely different in Ian. 

gunge and construction, from the first. Had Mr. 
Roche written according to the rules of the sys- 
tem which he uses in his school, he would have 
constructed the above clause in the following 
manner : 

Of Murray's, and of Brown's principles. 

Or thus : 

The principles of Murray's Grammar, and those 
of Brown's. 

" Embracing a comparative review of Murray's, 
and of Brown's principles." 

" Embracing a comparative review of Murray's 
principles, and those of Mr. James Brown's Gram- 
mar, with a view to eligibility" 

The use of " comparative ," and " eligibility" 
discovers ajine taste, and a profound philological 
research. At the word, "comparative," the lec- 
turer attempts in vain to express a particular idea 
— and, after stumbling through the rickety clause 
that follows the classic ground on which this 
essay is made, he renews the attempt in the word. 
"eligibility" again fails, and closes the scene! 



The object that the lecturer has so eagerly pur- 
sued, and which he would have seized with so 
much avidity, is the comparative merits of the 
two systems of grammar, to which he alludes in 
that finely constructed clause, which fully re- 
trieves the literary character lost in these unfor- 
tunate attempts ! 

The word "eligible," has no comparative allu- 
sion whatever — nor has " eligibility." " What is 
eligible is desirable in itself; what is preferable is 
more desirable than another. There may be eli- 
gible situations, out of which there may be but 
one which is preferable." Crabb. 

When it is said that a man is eligible to an 
office, the idea is, not that he is preferable to an- 
other — but simply, that he is worthy of the office. 
There may be a preference where there is no 
eligibility. For instance — neither of two certain 
men, who may be candidates for any particular 
office, may be eligible to the office ; yet, if one 
must be elected, there may be a preference. 

The sentence, with my attempted corrections, 
reads thus : 

Martin Roche will deliver a Lecture on En- 
glish Grammar, in the Franklin Institute, Friday 
Evening, the 19th instant; embracing an exami- 
nation of Murray's and Brown's principles, with 
a view to show the comparative merits of the two 
systems. 

"All persons feeling interested are particularly 
invited to attend." 

This sentence is chargeable with unjustifiable 
pleonasm and enallage. "Persons" and "feel- 
ing" are useless. 

All interested are particularly invited to attend. 
In this quotation, the word " interested." is so 
used that it cannot be parsed! "Feeling" is an 
active participle, and must have some objective 
word — hence an interest must be substituted for 
" interested ! .'" 

All feeling an interest, are particularly invited 
to attend. 

But Mr. Roche will appear on the defensive with 
the plea that "feeling interested" is a common 
phrase ! It is her, who have you seen, I have 
wrote a letter, &c. &c., are quite common. But 
are these to be made into a calash to hide this 
man's face from the public gaze ? 

And is it possible that he, who has been a 
teacher in this city, the capital of the American 
republic of letters, for thirty years, has written 
this notice 1 And is this the gentleman who has 
invited all persons feeling interested, to his lecture, 
embracing a comparative review of Murray's 
principles and those of Mr. James Brown's Gram- 
mar, with a view to eligibility ! ! 

" Sic transit gloria mundi." 
"Lower Dublin Academy, situated one mile 
above Holmesburg, and ten from Philadelphia." 

" In this seminary, young gentlemen are boarded 
and carefully instructed in the useful branches of a 



APPEAL. 



201 



polite education ; and expeditiously qualified to 
enter any college in the United States. 

" Terms, payable quarterly, in advance. For 
board, washing and tuition in the customary 
branches of an English education, thirty dollars 
per quarter." 

A very just and plain rule in writing, is that 
the construction of the sentence, and the nature 
of the subject, should accord one with the other ; 
as, John was boarded and educated in the house 
of his uncle." 

Here, the construction clearly indicates that 
John was boarded in his uncle's house ; and the 
nature of the subject is obviously consistent with 
this indication : for it is very possible for one to be 
boarded and taught under the same roof. 

"In this seminary, young gentlemen are boarded 
and carefully instructed," is correct English. But, 
when to this, it is subjoined that they are boarded 
and taught in the usual branches of English edu- 
cation, the above rule is violated. 

Here it is as clearly intimated that the pupil is 
boarded in the branches of education, as it is in 
the first that John was boarded in the house of his 
uncle. But as the branches of an English educa- 
tion can hardly be converted into a boarding house, 
the construction of the sentence is opposed to the 
nature of that sentence upon which it is founded. 

A more striking violation of the above rule may 
be found in the following sentence : 

" For board washing and tuition in the custom- 
ary branches of an English education, thirty 
dollars." 

That is, for board in the branches of an English 
education, for washing in the customary branches, 
of an English education, as well as for tuition in 
the customary branches of an English education ! 
Thus the construction of this sentence first calls 
upon the branches of an English education to be- 
come a boarding house; secondly, to become a 
wash tub ; and, thirdly, a counting house ! '. 
" Terms, payuble quarterly in advance." 
What is payable in advance ? why the terms — a 
very curious sort of coin indeed ! Better thus : 

At this seminary young gentlemen are carefully 
instructed in the usual branches of a polite educa- 
tion, and expeditiously qualified to enter any col- 
lege in the United States. 

Terms — Tuition for the customary branches of 
an English education, with board and washing, 
thirty dollars, payable quarterly, in advance. 



In conclusion, may I not express a hope that 
American children will learn grammar as it is in 
truth, not as it is in error. But it may be said 
that children are not able to perceive truth in 
grammar. Let children, then, attend to those 
branches which depend more upon the memory 
than upon the judgment. 



On the ground, however, that children can at- 
tend to nothing to greater advantage than to 
grammar, it is far better that they should attend 
to it as it is in truth, or philosophy, than as it is in 
error. Will any pretend that error can be better 
understood by children, than truth, and philoso- 
phy? 

What is English grammar, but philosophy of 
the English language ? He, therefore, that stu- 
dies grammar, studies a part of the constructive 
philosophy of the English language. And in the 
study of a grammatical system, grammar is at- 
tended to no further than that system is founded 
on the philosophy of the language. 

True, the child that is quite young, and unaccus- 
tomed to reflection, can not receive the philosophy 
of the language in all the love of the adult philolo- 
gist : but, as his habits become studious, and his 
mind advances to manhood, he will perceive the 
philosophy, the grammar of his language, with 
delight and affection. 

Before closing these Reflections, I deem it a 
duty to make a few remarks upon the subject of 
education. And, for the good of children, I would 
ask parents to give these remarks a hearty con- 
sideration. 

EDUCATION. 

To educate youth is to qualify persons to dis- 
charge with despatch and accuracy, those duties 
which arise from the relations of reciprocally de- 
pendent beings. Such a qualification may be con- 
sidered an education. And as the prosperity of 
individuals, as well as the happiness of society, 
depends very much upon this, there are few 
things to which parents should be more attentive 
than to the means employed for the instruction of 
their children. But among the numerous objects 
which share the attention of parents, education is 
rarely found ; and the plan of instruction never, 
perhaps receives one sound, sober thought. Upon 
this subject much might be said ; in tiiis place, 
however, I shall honestly notice a few of the 
many points to which parents should be more 
attentive. 

All parents who desire to place their children 
at school should propose the following questions to 
themselves, before they select a teacher : 

1. Has the teacher himself that knowledge 
which we desire our children to acquire ? 

2. Has the teacher the faculty of communicating 
his own knowledge to others — and especially, to 
children i 

3. Does the teacher instruct because he likes to 
teach, or because he can get nothing else to do ? 

4. Has the teacher talents to make just rules, 
and judgment to apply them in a manner which 
will produce that order in his school that facilitates 
the progress of his pupils ? 

5. Can the teacher speak the English language 
with propriety ? 



202 



APPEAL. 



Much importance should be attached to the 
teacher's skill in his own language. The in- 
structor who is without a critical acquaintance 
with the English language, is without that 
knowledge which every child should acquire at 
school. It is hoped that the time will soon come, 
when no one will be encouraged as a teacher of 
American youth, who does not even in his daily 
conversation, speak the English language with 
propriety. Every teacher should articulate dis- 
tinctly, and pronounce according to the sanctioned 
standard of orthoepy. He should select his words 
by the rules of rhetoric, and form them into sen- 
tences by the laws of grammar. As the teacher- 
of youth sets examples in speech, which his pupils 
will generally follow, how important it becomes to 
encourage those persons only, who use the lan- 
guage with grammatical precision, and rhetorical 
purity. 



^HE NEW SYSTEM DEFENDED AGAINST THE RECENT 
ATTACK OF THE REV. DR. ROBERT J. BRECKIN- 
RIDGE, OF BALTIMORE. 

"AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM." 

(HEAR BOTH SIDES.) 

To the Rev. Dr. Robert J. Breckinridge, Baltimore. 

Dear Sir, — A friend has just put into my hand, 
the August number of the " Baltimore Literary 
and Religious Magazine," adorned externally, 
with your own untitled name, and enriched in- 
ternally, with your own rare learning, wit, and 
piety. 

In the production which commences under page 
380, you appear to great advantage. The scene 
is one -of deep interest: the affair opens with the 
abrupt entrance of a. grammar lecturer, by whom 
a book is presented to you, which, in your own 
inimitable style, inculcates the system on which 
this philological magician had been performing a 
few of his necromantic feats in your own city ! 
The binding of the book is brilliant, and morocco; 
and the advocates of it, numerous and potent. 
The lecturer attempts to expound some of the 
mysteries of the system; and his first puff throws 
you into a Chinese puzzle ! He makes a second 
attempt, and you exclaim — a Freezeland that has 
backed into life ! And, like another Don Quixotte, 
you fall upon this Freezeland chicken ; and in a 
few short minutes almost three pages of the Balti- 
more Magazine are covered with the blood, 
plumage, and bones of grammar ! Of the lecturer 
himself you give no account — but certain it is, 
that he was not immolated upon the same altar 
upon which you offered up his system ! But, 
although you have not mingled his blood with the 
sacrifice, you have not withheld your own ! Yes, 
sir, from the same altar from which rises the 



smoke of the victim, ascends that of the priest 
who ministered at it. 

The following is your first sentence ; 

" A volume handsomely bound in red morocco 
with the foregoing title was put into our hands, 
with a request to examine it by the gentleman 
who has been lecturing in our city on the system 
inculcated by the book." 

In this sentence, the general reader will find 
every thing correct — the critical one, every thing 
wrong. And to see which is right, it will be ne- 
cessary to examine its circumstances, and its con- 
struction. Had you made this sentence the intro- 
duction of the American Grammar to the notice 
of your readers, and, had you intended by your 
examination to increase the demand for the work, 
you would have plausible ground for that formality 
of style, and pleonasm of circumstance, which in 
the absence of those two facts indicate a want of 
that taste, judgment, and knowledge, which should 
be found in the conductor of a Literary Maga- 
zine ! 

You call the attention of the reader to the new 
system by giving him the full title : 

"BROWN'S AMERICAN GRAMMAR." 

" The American System of English Syntax, 
developing the constructive principles of the 
English Phrenod, or Language, and impressing 
them on the memory by pictorial and scenical 
demonstration ; thus enabling the adult at home, 
and the child at school, to acquire in a few months, 
a better knowledge of Syntax by the American 
system than they can ever acquire by the British. 
By James Brown. Philadelphia : published by 
J. Blackmarr— 1837. 12mo. pp. 442. 

" A volume handsomely bound in red morocco, 
with the foregoing title was put into our hands, 
with a request to examine it, by the gentleman 
who has been lecturing in our city, on the system 
inculcated by the book." (39 words.) 

The gentleman who has been lecturing in our 
city on this system, has left us a copy of this work 
for examination. (22 words.) 
39 
22 

17!! 

But, sir, as I presume you h ave an inclination 
to learn, I will extend my reflections upon this 
sentence. And allow me to say, that in the fol- 
lowing repetition of it, you will find the parts on 
which I can lecture to the best advantage to your- 
self, in italic characters : 

" A volume handsomely bound in red morocco, 
with the foregoing title was put into our hands, 
with a request to examine it, by the gentleman 
who has been lecturing in our city on the system 
inculcated by the book. ,y 

How would you like to exchange was for has 
been — this exchange would not only give you two 



APPEAL 



203 



for one, but would correct the shameful error which 
the use of teas makes in the sense of the verb. 

It is obvious that you were requested to exam- 
ine the book. This idea, however, is derived from 
the nature of the scene ; and not from the Ian- 
guage with which you attempt to describe it. 

•* A volume handsomely bound in red morocco 
with the foregoing- title, was put into our hands, 
with a request to examine it, by the gentle- 
man," &.e. 

Let me employ the same construction where 
the nature of the case is not able to decide which 
of the two is to examine : 

The son put an apple into the hands of his father 
with a request to eat it. 

Is the father requested to eat — or is he requested 
to permit the son to eat? 

If the author of the sentence means to show that 
the father is requested to eat the apple, he should 
construct it as follows : 

The son put an apple into the hands of his 
father with a request that he should eat it. But, 
if he wishes to express that the father is requested 
to permit the son to eat it, he should construct the 
sentence as follows : 

The son put an apple into the hands of his 
father with a request that he might eat it. If the 
author of the sentence, however, wishes to leave it 
uncertain whether the father is requested to eat, 
or to permit the son to eat, he should construct 
his sentence by that of the Reverend Doctor 
Robert J. Breckinridge, the conductor of the 
Baltimore Literary Magazine ! 
" On the system inculcated by the book." 
I presume, sir, from this use of the word, in- 
culcated, and from the mention which you make 
of Professor Stewart's Hebrew Grammar, that 
you are better acquainted with the Hebrew than 
with the Latin ! With the utmost respect, sir, for 
your ardent love of the Greek verb as presented 
by Thersch, and with no wish whatever to cast 
even the shade of a censure upon your modest 
veto of Professor Stewart's Hebrew Grammar, I 
would recommend your attention to the Latin 
word, inculco! In the mean time you will allow 
me to give you the meaning of its derivative, in- 
culcate, to show you with what fidelity the off- 
spring follows its parent in signification : 

To inculcate, to impress with frequent admoni- 
tions ; to enforce, by constant repetition. Johnson. 
Inculcated, impressed, or enforced by frequent 
admonitions. Webster. 

Admonition, in church discipline, private or 
public reproof to reclaim an offender. Webster. 

I would now, sir, inculcate upon you under the 
admonition of the error which you have here com> 
mitted, to accept of imparted for inculcated : 

" On the system imparted by the book, or on 
the system taught, or presented in the book." 

Having, I presume, persuaded you to exchange 
inculcated for imparted, taught, or presented, par- 



don me for employing one moment in an attempt 
to persuade you to give up the three words, "6y 
the book," for two letters— i and t. These two 
letters, properly united, will make you a snug 
little substitute for the unwieldly trail which now 
drags your whole sentence out of form » Allow 
me, then, sir, to repeat your sentence with the 
substitution of it, for the words, " by the book :" 

" A volume handsomely bound in red morocco, 
with the foregoing title, was put into our hands 
for examination by the gentleman who has been 
lecturing in our city on the system imparted 
by it." 

It is the province of the pronoun, in many 
instances, not only to prevent the repetition of 
the first noun, but to interdict a second, in re- 
curring to the same thing denoted by the first. 
For instance, it is not English to use the boy in 
the following paragraph : 

" She called her son : but the boy did not hear." 

She called her son ; but he did not hear. 

The panegyric which this sentence passes upon 
your knowledge of grammar, is an ample voucher 
for your competency in this department, to con- 
duct a Literary Magazine .' And surely, he who 
has read the following exornation, and still sus- 
pects a want of classic lore in you to grace the 
pages of such a work, passes no very high eulo- 
gium upon himself: 

" If ever an envious Juno sat cross-legged over 
the nativity of any intellectual offspring, we should 
hazard the conjecture of such a woful fate to 
this ! .'" 

This is certainly a Chinese puzzle! Who, 
without the aid of this flourish in Heathen Mytho- 
logy, could ever conceive that that excellence 
which makes Juno envious, is a woful fate !'/ If 
ever a Juno was strung up for giving birth to 
special ill shape, and general distortion, I " should 
hazard the conjecture of such a woful fate to" 
yourself. Minerva, incensed as she must be, may 
still Lynch you — she may in her rage for revenge, 
wrest the magnetic pulleys from the grasp of old 
Vulcan, and you be raised higher for your bad 
deeds, than you ever will for your good ones I 

Under page 380, you say : 

" The whole affair exhibits one of the most ex- 
traordinary vagaries of the human mind, which 
has ever fallen under our notice." 

" Mr. Brown indeed, sets out for a fundamental 
revolution in the science of Grammar — both in 
principles, and terminology ; confining himself 
indeed to our language for the present, but ulti- 
mately subverting all, if his system can conquer, 
rather massacre," 

" It is impossible to impart to the reader an 
accurate idea of his principles and methods, in the. 
limits to which these observations are confined. 
We will, therefore, content ourselves with a few 
brief citations of his principles, terms, and repre- 
sentations, taken from various parts of the book.''' 



204 



APPEAL. 



Here follows a sentence which you tell the reader 
you have taken out of the book: 

" A sentence is an assemblage of two, or more 
words containing a cofldiction .'" 

Now, sir, although you give the reader the very 
page from which you say you have quoted this 
paragraph, I must inform him that neither the 
language nor the sentiment of this sentence, can 
be found in the book ! ! But you proceed to in- 
form the reader, that to illustrate the doctrine, the 
principle, of this sentence, there " are cuts of a 
watch, a figure of interrogation, a crown, a man 
in a posture of supplication, and a rainbow." In 
this, however, there is no truth ! The book makes 
no attempt to illustrate the principle of that sen- 
tence ; for the sentence is not in the book ! 

You tell the reader that these figures represent 
the five condictions. Yet the book from which 
you profess to make these extracts, speaks of' no 
condictions whatever ! ! I can readily see how 
you have formed the word, condiction. I presume 
you have made it from con, together, and dico, to 
say. But, then, the application of this word in a 
system of Grammar is certainly, as you yourself 
say, a Chinese puzzle// 

You conclude your chapter of condictions as 
follows : 

" It is asserted that no words, by their dictionary 
meaning, can express any of these five condic- 
tions/" 

To this conclusion you subjoin the following 
paragraph : 

" By this time we trust our readers have a clear 
notion of what a sentence is. If not, they will 
find the subject illustrated through 35 closely 
printed pages, by the aid of many cuts, and most 
prodigious terms ! !" 

You commence your next chapter by citing the 
divisions of the subject as found in the book. 

"Part II. Illustration 1, p. 70.. There are 
two parts of speech, viz. cormos, and ramus." 

"And this grand idea is illustrated through a 
large portion of the book, and with pictures and 
terms, never paralleled, we venture to say !" 

What is the grand idea illustrated ? Why, that 
in the frame-work of a sentence, the words, from 
their trunk, and branch relation, are divided into 
cormos, and ramus families. {Cormos, trunk, 
Ra-mus, a branch.) 

" And with pictures, and terms, never paralleled 
we venture to say !" 

One of the pictures employed is that of the 
trunk of a tree ; the other is that of a branch ! ! 
They are under page 72. 

One of the terms is cormos; the other is 
ramus// 

You have made the pretence to review my 
book, the occasion to distort and misrepresent it. 
You first cite the title of the work. You then 
say that you have been presented with a copy for 
your examination. To this you subjoin the fact, 



that he from whom you received the copy, gave 
you the leading principles of the system with some 
of its technical terms, and some of its pictorial 
demonstrations. And yet, in your attempted 
review of this work, you have not presented your 
reader with one of its principles ! Nor do you 
mention one of its terms, till after you make a 
bluster against them ! And, to render this tornado 
effectual in sustaining the impressions which you 
labour to make by it, you give your reader, under 
the pretence of quoting from the Grammar itself, 
terms which had never been printed before they 
graced the pages of the Baltimore literary and 
Religious Magazine ! ! From the paragraphs 
which constitute this preliminary trick, as well as 
from those which are fabricated to consummate it, 
I have already quoted. 

" The whole affair exhibits one of the most ex- 
traordinary vagaries of the human mind, which 
has ever fallen under our notice." 

Now, to sustain yourself in this judgment, you 
contrive to make me say : 

" A sentence is an assemblage of two or more 
words, containing a condiction//" 

You had already pronounced the work a Chinese 
puzzle — and to verify your assertion, you contrive 
to make it one ! You devote more than half of 
your feigned attempt to quote from my book, to 
my exposition of a sentence. And in every in- 
stance you substitute your own technicality for 
mine ! ! 

To your farce of pretending to quote me on a 
sentence, you add the following after-piece which 
is so much like your prologue, that it can be under- 
stood without comment : 

" By this time we trust our readers have a clear 
notion of what a sentence is ! If not, they will 
find the subject illustrated through 35 closely 
printed pages by the aid of many cuts, and most 
prodigious terms!" 

The subject of a sentence is discussed within 
the limits of eleven pages ! 

You now commence de novo. 

"P. 70. There are two parts of speech, viz. 
cormos, and ra-mus. The former he tells us, page 
435, answers to the noun, pronoun, and interjection 
— which are the fundamental parts of speech ; the 
latter, to all the others, which are accessory only. 
And this grand idea is illustrated through a large 
portion of the book, and with pictures and terms, 
never paralleled, we venture to say !" 

The great difference between 35 and 11, as 
found between the truth, and your averment, 
makes examination in this, necessary to faith/ 

The idea that nouns, pronouns, and interjections 
are the fundamental parts of speech, is not only 
not illustrated through a large portion of the book, 
but it is not even advanced in any part of it. 
Nor is the subject of the comparative importance 
of words as parts of speech, as the means of speeab 



APPEAL. 



205 



agitated in it any farther than the full expres- 
sion of the doctrine, that by the aid of the noun 
and verb, a sentence, speech, can be formed ! It 
is on this principle that the book divides words 
into sentensic, and insentensic. 

An Example. "There was a marriage." 
There, a word of the insentensic order. 
Was, a word of the sentensic order. 
A, a word of the insentensic order. 
Marriage, a word of the sentensic order. 

Your course, sir, is any thing but honourable, 
any thing but pardonable. I presume that you 
think that these moral blotches may be healed by 
the sacredness of your station. But prudence and 
justice protest against a cure from such a source. 
Thus cured, they would be likely to break out 
anew, under an aggravated form; perhaps, be- 
yond the reach of what is now a sovereign 
remedy. What! shall a Rev. Dr. offend, and 
harmlessly burrow within the gravity of his rank ; 
and thus draw his earthly protection from the 
mere dignity of his heavenly commission ? Had 
the review in question been the momentary ema- 
nation of a political partizan, or the puny effusions 
of a sarcastic scribbler, fed by the scintillations 
of his wit, and the distortions of truth, the offence 
might find some palliation in its source, necessity, 
and commonness. Or had it been thrown into 
existence by a youth whose heat had intoxicated 
his brain, the assault might find some assuagement 
from its proximity to the cradle ! But the attack 
is the production of a man advanced in age, and 
matured from experience; one professedly, a 
Christian minister — one who labours to become 
the earthly head of that church whose heavenly 
Plinth frowns upon his deeds of slander. You, 
however, in extenuation of your offence, will tell 
this community that you have intended nothing 
like mean revengeful misrepresentation — not genu- 
ine falsehood, created without nobleness of pur- 
pose ; but that your deep, your affectionate, regard 
for the flowers upon the hill of science, is the 
cause of your blasting the lilies in (he vineyard 
of your Master. But was the interposition of 
your strong arm necessary to prevent the adoption 
of such a work as you have represented the 
American Grammar ? ! 

•'A Chinese puzzle, — the most extraordinary 
vagaries of the human mind — if his system can 
conquer, rather massacre ours, — if ever a book 
came backwards into life," — a " Freezeland 
chicken .' .'" 

Now, sir, is that part of this enlightened com- 
munity that is concerned with the republic of let- 
ters, to be degraded by the insane supposition that 
the studied, deliberate attack by any pen, becomes 
important as a preventive against their adopting a 
Chinese puzzle, or a Freezeland chicken, as an 
English Grammar ! ? Had you represented the 
work in question as imposing in appearance ; in. 



geniously contrived, skillfully executed, and well 
calculated to attract, and secure the attention of 
the grammarians of our country, you would appear 
more gracious in your attack ! But the spirit of 
slander which prompted you to the assault, would 
not permit you to give the work that merit which 
was actually necessary to make your attack wear 
even the appearance of necessity, or justice. You 
have described this work as a production vague 
in its principles, crazy in its parts, blind in its 
diction, and laughable in its pretensions ! And, 
yet, incredible as it may appear, this is the work 
which you, the Rev. Dr. Robert J. Breckinridge, 
have stepped forward to put down ! Yes — against 
this night-hag, this formidable shape, this grisly 
substance, 

("If shape it might be call'd that shape hath none 
Distinguishable in member, joint or limb ; 
Or substance might be call'd that shadow seem'd.") 

you, to prevent the pride, the beauty, and the taste 
of your country from being entangled in Hymen's 
bands, '■'■shook a dreadful dart I .'" 

Sir, when 1 find a messenger of peace measur- 
ing his steps by the book which he preaches, and 
directing his course by the spire upon his sacred 
dome — when I behold him like the moon, rolling 
in his orb of grace, and reflecting upon this world 
the light of the other, — when I see him throwing 
the rays of his Lord through the clouds which 
gather. to conceal his glories, I revere him as a 
secondary means of truth, and life. But, sir, when 
I find him trampling upon this book, stabbing with 
this spire, excluding this light, and diverting these 
rays from their legitimate course, I hate hiin as 
" a serpent armed with mortal sting." 

J. Brown. 

ELLS'S GRAMMAR. 

Within a few days a book has fallen into my 
hands, entitled, " Book Instructor, Designed to 
teach the science of English Grammar without a 
teacher. By B. F. Ells. 

I have cast my eye over several pages of the 
work ; and I might say that I have been consider- 
ably amused with their contents. In fumbling 
over its leaves, I have met with a few things 
which are not quite so clear to me as I should like 
to have them. For instance — the book teaches ; 
hence I cannot clearly see why it is not a teacher . 
As the science is taught by an instructor, is it 
taught without a teacher 1 ? 

The import of the title page seems to be this — 

An instructor, designed to teach the science of 
English Grammar without an instructor !! ! If 
teaching can be done without a teacher, eating can 
be done without an eater ! 1 1 

Book Instructor, Designed to teach the science 
of English Grammar without an Instructor ! ! ! 

Thus much for the obscurity in the name of this 
Instructor. The next thing which is somewhat 



206 



APPEAL. 



unintelligible, is in the following feature of his 
truly Grecian face. 

" The English language is about thirteen hun- 
dred years old" 

I cannot understand why a language should be 
spoken of as though it is an animal whose age is 
told by the condition, of the teeth, or by the num- 
ber of orbicular lines upon the horns! ! 

But the most mysterious lineament in the whole 
of this Instructor's face is the following : 

" It was the last formed language in the world, 
and without doubt will continue to be the last, till 
time shall have been lost in the vortex of eter- 
nity !" 

" It was and will be." 

It is surprising to me how an Instructor can 
teach the science of grammar, while he is so igno- 
rant of it that he actually connects the imperfect 
and the future tense ! ! 

" It was the last formed language in the 
world" 

Here is an obvious intimation that there has 
been a language formed out of the world since the 
English was formed in it ! ! ! ! That the father of 
this Instructor should ascertain the probable length 
of time which has elapsed since the formation of 
the English Language, is not so very remarkable. 
But that he should be so familiar with external 
operations, that he is able to say that there has 
been a language formed outside of this universe 
since the English was formed inside of it, is 
almost incredible ! ! 

What herald has communicated to him that 
there is a work-shop out of this universe, in which 
there have been languages formed since the con- 
struction of the English in this world ! ! ? 

" Till time shall have been lost in the vortex of 
eternity" 

I " wonder" if these languages of which the 
above sentence gives the first intimation, can be 
made instrumental in ascertaining what is meant 
by " the vortex of eternity ! ! .'" 

I first thought that the father of this hopeful 
offspring, may mean the " tempestuous philologi- 
cal sea" portrayed upon another member of this 
bantling ! 

" It was the last formed language in the world, 
and without doubt will continue to be the last, 
till time shall have been lost in the vortex of 
eternity ! 

That is, till time shall have been lost in the 
whirlpool of eternity ! ! ! 

What ! Is eternity to be melted down in the 
crucible of the universe, and made to whirl in its 
liquid state to the destruction of time ! ! ! ? 

One would think that there must have been a 
vortex of the brain just about the time of the for- 
mation of the " Book Instructor ! I" 

" Because it (language) is the only medium 
which renders your mind accessible to the other 



As the medium is the language itself, it is diffi- 
cult for me to see a propriety in the use of other '. 
Was language a science, the use of other would 
be proper. But as it is not a science, why should 
a teacher of grammar intimate that it is ! ? 

" Because it is the only medium which renders 
your mind accessible to the other sciences." 

Here, in an attempt to say that Language is the 
only medium which renders sciences accessible to 
the mind, this modern destructionist affirms that 
it is the only medium which renders the mind ac- 
cessible to the sciences ! That is, the mind may 
be approached by the sciences ! ! Grammarians, 
in genera], talk the other way : They say, the 
sciences may be approached by the mind. 

" Besides the above, there are others of the same 
character, but this list will serve as a specimen," 

The word, others, is as unimportant as the 
" Book Instructor" is useless ! 

'• And nothing difficult is placed before him 
until he is prepared by previous lessons to com- 
prehend it." 

•' Nothing is placed before him until he is pre- 
pared to comprehend it / /" 

That is, nothing is placed before him till he is 
prepared to understand nothing 1 ! 

I should be glad to know through what process 
the pupil must pass to qualify him to comprehend 
nothing 1 / 

I feel perfectly satisfied that the " Book In- 
structor" will enable any pupil to understand 
nothing! Hence I must advise every one who 
understands his true interest to let it alone. 

Until the appearance of the Book Instructor, 
the wonders of the world, were confined to the 
Egyptian Pyramids, the Mausoleum, erected by 
Artemisia, the Temple of Diana, at Ephesus, the 
Walls, and Hanging Gardens of Babylon, the 
Colossus at Rhodes, the Statue of Jupiter Olym- 
pius, and the Pharos, or watch tower of Alex- 
andria. 

This accession to the seven wonders should 
surely be the commencement of a new era// 

The Book Instructor which constitutes the 
eighth wonder of the world, is designed " to benefit 
the following classes :" 

1. " Those whose advanced age prevents their 
attending to this science in the ordinary way." 

2. " Young merchants, mechanics, and other 
young persons just commencing business for 
themselves, whose time is so devoted, as to pre- 
clude the possibility of their attending to this 
study in the ordinary way." 

3. "Apprentices whose time is so circumscribed 
by contract, as to prevent their attending to the 
study in the ordinary way." 

4. " Those who do not enjoy the advantage of 
competent teachers of this science !" 

5. " Those, though they reside in the vicinity 
of good teachers, are too poor to attend to its study 
in the ordinary way." 



APPEAL. 



207 



Yet» strange as it may appear, more than three- 
fourths of the Book Instructor are devoted to an 
attempt to confute the doctrine advanced by a 
speculative writer upon the subject of case, mood, 
tense, definition of pronouns, &c, a, as an article, 
&c., &c. The following paragraphs will serve 
as a specimen of the litigious spirit and the gram, 
matical knowledge, of the father of the Book In- 
structor : 

" How says Mr. Brown and others that there 
are but two degrees of comparison ?" 

Mr. Brown and others says ! ! ! 

" J esteem the writings of Mr. B., on English 
philology, as of no ordinary character ; yet I be. 
lieve him deficient in many things." " To say 
that we have but two degrees of comparison in re- 
lation to Adjectives, is to manifest a weakness, 
entirely inconsistent with the philological character 
of Mr. B." What is comparison but the placing 
of one thing beside another, and telling the differ, 
ence between them ?" 

I have always understood that we compare to 
ascertain the agreement of one thing with another, 
or the likeness of one thing to another ! 

We contrast one thing with another to get the 
difference between them ! 

" But if I place a positively sweet apple beside a 
positively sour one by way of showing the differ- 
ence between them, that difference is not a degree 
according to Mr. B.'s system !" 

Here is a Grammarian who prates about com- 
paring two things entirely different ! 

This sweet apple is sweeter than that sow one ! ! ! 
That is, this black horse is blacker than that white 
one ! ! ! ! 

"But we shall leave this subject, believing that 
enough has been said to prove our position, which 
is none other than the position of the immortal 
Murray ! ! ! " 

Before I leave this page of the Book Instructor, 
I wish to give a specimen of the power of its 
author in defining words : 

" What is the definition of the word good?" " It 
is a term that implies no evil ! ! " 

The word, lamp, then, signifies good — " lamp " 
does not imply any evil ! 

The word, ice, means good — " ice" implies no 
evil ! I 

" This machine is ingenious — it is an engine 
powerful in operation, and useful in effect." — 
Brown's Appeal. 

" In this example Mr. B., has attempted to show 
that Mr. Murray's definition of a pronoun, is falli- 
ble ; because says he it makes engine a pronoun 
inasmuch as it is used in the place of the noun 
machine.' 1 '' But Mr. B. should have looked farther 
ahead, and he would have seen the sad predica- 
ment into which he has drawn his own definition 
by this' same example ; for if engine convey the 



same idea that machine docs, it not only stands in 
the place of machine, but is also a complete repre- 
sentative of it." 

" Brown's — A pronoun is the representative of 
a noun." 

" Murray's — A pronoun is a word used instead 
of a noun." 

It is obvious that the father of the Book Instruc- 
tor which is no teacher, can not comprehend either 
of these definitions. Brown says that the pronoun 
is not the name, not the representative, of the 
thing, but of the name of the thing. 

Murray says a pronoun is a word used instead 
of a noun. The following instance illustrates 
Brown's definition : 

1. "John lost his knife, and he found it.'" 

The word it, is not the name, not the represen- 
tative, of the real knife, but of the word, knife. 
And the word, he, is not the representative of the 
real person, but of the word John. 

In the following, the word, engine, is a perfect 
illustration of Murray's definition : 

" This machine is ingenious, — it is an engine 
powerful in operation, and useful in effect." 

The word, engine, does not represent the word, 
machine — " engine" represents the real machine. 
More,— ?■" engine" is used in the place of the word, 
machine, to represent the real machine — hence 
engine is a pronoun. 

" First, he (Brown) attempts to prove that a is 
an article, from the fact that it was used as such 
in a few instances in the language from which 
it was derived." (Page 145.) 

This statement shows a willingness in the father 
of the Book Instructor to violate the ninth com- 
mandment ! There is no excuse for Mr. Ells — 
there is nothing in the works of James Brown, 
which bears the slightest analogy to this state- 
ment ! Let this man learn the grammar of the 
Bible before he attempts to teach that of the lan- 
guage in which he tramples that sacred book 
under his feet. The following is the language of 
Mr. Brown : 

" If un always means one, we ask how it hap- 
pens that the acute philologists of France, denomi- 
nate un, in one expression, an article, and in an- 
other, a numeral adjective." Appeal. 

Is here the least intimation that Brown attempts 
to prove that a is an article upon any principle ! 

" Now, we are led to believe that Mr. B. is in- 
consistent and unfair in his manner of reasoning; 
for, — First, he attempts to prove that a is an arti- 
cle from the fact that it was used as such in a 
few instances in the language from which it was 
derived." 

Second, when we take the same ground to prove 
that English nouns have case, Mr. B. spurns the 
idea ; and lastly, when Mr. B. would appear more 
formidable than ever, he tells us that, 



208 



APPEAL. 



" Case does not signify situation in general, in 
the Latin ; and therefore it cannot be adopted, in 
general, in the English." 

Here is another base infraction of " Thou shalt 
not hear false witness against thy neighbor." 
Where can this novus homo find that James 
Brown has taken any such position as is here 
ascribed to him ? 

" He tells us that case does not signify situation, 
in general, in the Latin ; and therefore it cannot 
be adopted in general, in the English ! !" 

If any thing in the works of Mr. Brown could 
be found which even by contortion, could be made 
to bear the least resemblance to this language, 
either in sentiment, or phraseology, this second 
Ananias might find some calash to hide his shame- 
covered face from the gaze of the world. 

" Here, then, it appears that Mr. B. has disco- 
vered that the French un or une from which our 
indefinite article was derived, does not always 
signify une or unity, but is sometimes used as an 
article, and sometimes as an adjective ; therefore, 
he reasonably concludes that, it can be used-as an 
article in our language, and as such we have 
adopted it !" 

Really — " therefore he (Mr. B.) reasonably con- 
cludes that, it can be used as an article in our 
language ! '. '. 

What can reimburse this man for the loss of 
character which his total disregard to truth must 
occasion. 

" Therefore let us hear Mr. B. acknowledging 
the fact that termination in Latin does not always 
determine the case." 

" It is possible, however, that the caseless condi- 
tion of a few nouns in Latin, may be resorted to, to 
justify the use of case in English." — Appeal. 

The Book Instructor which professes to teach 
English Grammar, was published in Indiana, in 
1834. About this time several of the works by 
Mr. Brown were considerably read in that country. 
Among them was his Appeal from the old theory 
of English Grammar to common sense. In these 
books the eruditeMr. Ells has found matter out of 
which to make his Book Instructor. And from 
the Appeal he has taken the sentence which is 
given below : 

" It is possible, however, that the caseless con- 
dition of a few nouns in Latin, may be resorted 
to, to justify the use of case in English." 

The learned father of the Book Instructor, 
finding that the works of Mr. Brown, had called 
the attention of the people to the subject of English 
grammar, came to the conclusion to publish a 
book on this science. But, believing that, unless 
the doctrine of the Appeal could be confuted, 
there would be little demand for a new book on 
the old plan, and feeling that the copy-right law 
would protect Brown's books, he found that he 
must either lose the opportunity of gratifying the 
propensity of a miser by a complete abandonment 



of his project, or make room for his contemplated 
book by an overthrow of Brown's principles. 
Finding it utterly impossible to overthrow any of 
these, he becomes reckless of every thing which 
the laws of God, and man required him to be ! 
While, to enable him to overthrow Brown, he fills 
the books of Brown with language, and sentiments 
of which Brown would be ashamed, he filches 
both language, and sentiments from them to enable 
him to form his own ! To support the idea of case 
he found it important to diminish the confidence 
which he knew the people felt in the soundness of 
Brown's exposition of the inutility, and inappli- 
cability of this part of the old theory. And to 
diminish this confidence he absolutely ascribes to 
Brown language which Brown has never uttered, 
and doctrine which he has never advocated in any 
way whatever. Is the reader unable to see the 
motive for this base trick ? Mr. Ells, finding the 
doctrine advanced by Brown impregnable, and 
finding it all important to his own success as a 
book mender, to shake the confidence which the 
people felt in Brown, compels Brown to advance 
things which, he in patching up a book, could 
confute. For instance, to show that Browns 
position in relation to the ground upon which the 
old school grammarian may attempt to sustain the 
use of case in English, is not only untenable, but 
actually opposed to Broion's position in relation to 
a, Ells does not hesitate to declare that Brown 
" attempts to prove that a is an article, from the 
fact, that it was used as such, in a few instances 
in the language from which it was derived." Mr. 
Ells intended this as the fulcrum on which to 
sustain the following lever : 

" If the fact that the use of un 
article in some cases 

strength to the idea, that its offspring a is always 
an article, so does the fact, that case means situa- 
tion in some instances in the Latin, give strength 
to the idea, tint case means situation in most 
cases in English." Book Instructor, page 144. 
But Mr. Brown not only does not say that a 
should be called an article in English because it 
is used in its parent language in a few instances 
as such, but he does not say that a should be 
called an article in any language on any account 
whatever. 

"Is it possible Mr. B./" "Yes, it is." "And 
so you deprecate the idea of case meaning Termi- 
nation or Condition in English, and yet you 
allow the Latins to distinguish the cases of some 
of their nouns by this same deprecated rule." 

Mr. Brown does not advance the idea that the 
case of any nouns in the Latin, or in any other 
language, is determined by their situation. He 
says that there are nouns in the Latin, which have 
no case : 

"It is possible that the caseless condition of a 
few nouns in the Latin, may be resorted to, to jus- 
tify the use of case in English." — Apeeal. 



or une as an 
in its native language, gives 



APPEAL, 



209 



In taking leave of Mr. Ells, I deem it proper to 
state that the following compliment is no compen- 
sation for the depredations which he has commit- 
ted upon Mr. Brown's books : 

"A. I will; and in doing so, I cannot subserve 
the cause in which I am embarked better, than by 
extracting a few articles from Mr. Brown on this 
subject, whom I acknowledged to be the author of 
the principal part of my information on this subject. 
Mr. B.'s illustration of the characters of preposi- 
tions, is by far the best and most useful production 
of his pen ; and deserves the patronage of every 
lover of this science, No grammarian should con. 
sider his library complete while wanting the works 
of James Brown on English philology." — (Book 
Instructor, p. 184.) 

While Mr. Ells presumes that he can catch 
enough by stealthy angling without detection, to 
answer his purpose, every fish in the whole sea is 
a toad — but, when he finds that he needs more 
than he presumes he can catch by stealthy angling 
without exposure, every toad is a fine fish ! For 
instance, — under page 90, he clandestinely takes 
Mr. Brown's monology : 



1- " The Lord shall prepare my pasture ;" 

2. " And he shall feed me." 

3. " With a shepherd's care :" 

4. " His presence shall supply my wants," 

5. "and it shall guard me" 

6. " with a watchful eye." 

" A man like B. F. Ells, should be guarded 
with a watchful eye ! !" 

The ninetieth page in the Book Instructor, 
is a memorable leaf: it deserves to be nine times 
told that the first sentence which is divided into 



monos by filched principles, is one consecrated to 
that cause which Mr. Ells professes to honor, and 
to love I 

EXERCISES. 

1. " The Lord shall prepare my pasture." 

Why does not the paper page itself, the offspring 
of rags, exude from its fibres, a tearful drop over 
this act of desecration ? 

This Mr. Ells is not only a gross plagiarist, but 
a most consummate hypocrite. These Exercises 
which commence with the above mono, are intro- 
duced without one word of comment ! Not even 
the fact that the sentences are monoized, is men- 
tioned ! ! In another part of his book he introduces 
Brown's Sentence parsing. But he has made cor^ 
siderable alteration in the process ! Here he ex- 
plains lustily '. But the change which he has 
made cannot conceal his tricks. 

In two thirds of his whole book he can be dis- 
tinctly seen employing Brown's principles or 
forms, piecemeal, in some way, or other. At last 
when he finds that he must have more than he 
presumes he can procure in this way without de- 
tection, he becomes the great admirer of Brown! 

What ! is a man to be misrepresented, abused, 
by his enemies till they need his aid to support 
them ; and then positively submit to robbery, be- 
cause the marauders bestow a little fulsome praise 
upon his property ! ? From the beginning to the 
end of this Book Instructor, the compiler is a 
plagiarist. He presumes that he has concealed 
the source of his ideas by the language in which 
he expresses them. But this is not the case. 
And I now apprise him, and other grammar 
patchers, that although their ignorance may ex- 
cuse them for their numerous, and flagrant 
infractions upon the laws of grammar, it can not 
be pleaded as an apology for their violation of the 
laws of the land. 



THE QUESTIONS TO BE DECIDED. 



1. Is the old theory of English Grammar, as compiled by L. Murray, and 
changed, (not improved,) by others, sound enough to be tolerated ? 

2. Is the new system of English Grammar by James Brown, perfectly sound ? 

3. Will the advantage resulting from the introduction of the new system, com- 
pensate for the inconvenience of adopting it '? 



IJI&.®V& 



wmm m 



: mm 






§»&« 









W'tfSS 


iir*5F 


S^Hnfli 


EBPHsB 


1 

KM 

111 

St- 








• 

§Maa 






S.^.A^*^'; 


W^^PwW^m^w^^ 






Mflpl'iffl 


}i'4'> ■!■■ V.-: ; *-*> 


S'^^/*» 


S^^^^ifYW TTf 


A K-" " l *s*s ' bf ' j ; _ 



Si&te$ 



. .«»« 



&i«ra 






lL¥ii 









^fx^ 






Qmm£'f\:A 






! n:RI ; 









a^M&# 






mm 






i'M 



ftA'ft 









Bii»: 






>VN*£i 



^w*^ %iffl 



***&«« 



Mil 






AM 



: 



"ft 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




.:■:>••. 



2* 




>»» 



«££ 



#y^j|p 









ral 







